U.S. patent application number 14/399253 was filed with the patent office on 2015-05-21 for cognitive training method for semantic skills enhancement.
The applicant listed for this patent is BAR ILAN UNIVERSITY. Invention is credited to Nili Metuki.
Application Number | 20150140525 14/399253 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 49550263 |
Filed Date | 2015-05-21 |
United States Patent
Application |
20150140525 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Metuki; Nili |
May 21, 2015 |
COGNITIVE TRAINING METHOD FOR SEMANTIC SKILLS ENHANCEMENT
Abstract
A method for training a semantic ability of a subject, the
method being performed by a computer the method comprising: a.
Displaying a linguistic task to the subject on a display of the
computer, said linguistic task comprising providing one or more
words, wherein said linguistic task is directed to training the
subject in a specific semantic skill or skills; b. Providing a
plurality of linguistic clues to the subject, through the display
of the computer, said plurality of linguistic clues comprising
content capable of activating concepts related to said one or more
words but wherein said content does not include said one or more
words or synonyms thereof, wherein said linguistic clues are
selected such that the subject integrates said plurality of
linguistic clues to solve said linguistic task, wherein said
linguistic clue comprises an image, audio, video, text or a
combination thereof; c. Receiving a solution to said linguistic
task by the subject through the computer; and d. If said solution
is not correct, providing one or more additional linguistic clues
to the subject, said one or more additional linguistic clues
comprising content capable of activating concepts related to said
one or more words, wherein the subject integrates said one or more
additional linguistic clues with said plurality of linguistic clues
to solve said linguistic task, and wherein i) said content does not
include said one or more words or synonyms thereof, or ii) if said
content does include said one or more words or synonyms thereof,
said content does not comprise written text.
Inventors: |
Metuki; Nili; (Even-Yehuda,
IL) |
|
Applicant: |
Name |
City |
State |
Country |
Type |
BAR ILAN UNIVERSITY |
Ramat Gan |
|
IL |
|
|
Family ID: |
49550263 |
Appl. No.: |
14/399253 |
Filed: |
May 7, 2013 |
PCT Filed: |
May 7, 2013 |
PCT NO: |
PCT/IL2013/050390 |
371 Date: |
November 6, 2014 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
61643350 |
May 7, 2012 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
434/169 |
Current CPC
Class: |
A63F 13/46 20140902;
G09B 19/00 20130101; G09B 5/06 20130101; G16H 20/70 20180101; A63F
13/67 20140902; A63F 2300/513 20130101; G06Q 90/00 20130101; A63F
2300/554 20130101; G06Q 50/20 20130101; A63F 13/63 20140902; A63F
2300/552 20130101; A63F 13/5375 20140902; A63F 2300/305 20130101;
A63F 13/79 20140902; A63F 13/69 20140902; A63F 13/75 20140902; A63F
2300/61 20130101; A63F 13/352 20140902; A63F 2300/6027 20130101;
A63F 2300/8064 20130101; A63F 13/44 20140902 |
Class at
Publication: |
434/169 |
International
Class: |
G09B 19/00 20060101
G09B019/00; G09B 5/06 20060101 G09B005/06 |
Claims
1-101. (canceled)
102. A method for training a semantic ability of a subject, the
method being performed by a computer, the method comprising: a.
displaying a linguistic task to a subject on a display of the
computer, said linguistic task comprising providing one or more
words, wherein said linguistic task is directed to training the
subject in a specific semantic skill or skills; b. providing a
plurality of linguistic clues to the subject, through the display
of the computer, said plurality of linguistic clues comprising
content capable of activating concepts related to said one or more
words but wherein said content does not include said one or more
words or synonyms thereof, wherein said linguistic clues are
selected such that the subject integrates said plurality of
linguistic clues to solve said linguistic task, wherein said
linguistic clue comprises an image, audio, video, text or a
combination thereof; c. receiving a solution to said linguistic
task by the subject through the computer; and d. when said solution
is not correct, providing one or more additional linguistic clues
to the subject, said one or more additional linguistic clues
comprising content capable of activating concepts related to said
one or more words, wherein the subject integrates said one or more
additional linguistic clues with said plurality of linguistic clues
to solve said linguistic task, and wherein i) said content does not
include said one or more words or synonyms thereof, or ii) when
said content does include said one or more words or synonyms
thereof, said content does not comprise written text.
103. The method of claim 102, wherein said providing one or more
words by the subject comprises at least one of entering said one or
more words to the computer and identifying said one or more words
by the subject.
104. The method of claim 102, wherein said plurality of clues is
revealed sequentially according to a requirement for integration of
said plurality of linguistic clues by the subject.
105. The method of claim 104, wherein each clue is revealed
separately, such that only one clue is revealed at a given time;
wherein said providing said linguistic clues to the subject further
comprises penalizing the subject when the subject requests display
of a previously displayed clue.
106. The method of claim 102, wherein said receiving said solution
to said linguistic task comprises analyzing said solution and
wherein said analyzing said solution further comprises analyzing a
correctness of said solution and one or more of a time required to
complete said solution, a number of clues provided to the subject
before said solution is submitted, a number of guesses before the
correct solution was submitted, a number of times previously seen
clues were displayed again, or a combination thereof.
107. The method of claim 102, comprising repeating stages a-d at
least once; wherein at least one of said linguistic task and said
at least one linguistic clue is different upon repetition of stages
a-d.
108. The method of claim 102, wherein said providing said plurality
of linguistic clues to the subject, through the display of the
computer, further comprises selecting said linguistic clues
according to a level of difficulty; wherein said level of
difficulty is determined according to a semantic ability of the
subject.
109. The method of claim 102, wherein said selecting said
linguistic clues further comprises selecting a game world for the
subject, said game world having a plurality of characteristic
features, including at least one or more of instructions,
incentives, type of clues, penalty on display of previous clues,
sequence of clues and time of exposure of a given clue; and
selecting said linguistic clues also according to said game
world.
110. The method of claim 102, further comprising providing an
incentive to the subject to provide said solution through the
computer; wherein said incentive comprises one or more of points to
obtain a reward, points convertible to monetary value, points
relating to progress and/or points for comparison between different
users.
111. A method for determining semantic ability of a subject, the
method being performed by a computer, the method comprising:
displaying a linguistic task to the subject on a display of the
computer, said linguistic task comprising providing one or more
words by the subject to the computer; providing at least one
linguistic clue to the subject, through the display of the
computer, said at least one linguistic clue comprising content
capable of activating concepts related to said one or more words
but wherein i) said content does not include said one or more words
or synonyms thereof, or ii) when said content does include said one
or more words or synonyms thereof, said content does not comprise
written text, wherein said linguistic clue comprises an image,
audio, video, text or a combination thereof, and wherein said
linguistic clues are selected such that the subject integrates said
at least one to solve said linguistic task; receiving a solution to
said linguistic task by the subject through the computer; and
analyzing said solution to determine the semantic ability of the
subject.
112. The method of claim 111, wherein said analyzing said solution
further comprises analyzing a correctness of said solution and one
or more of a time required to complete said solution or a number of
clues provided to the subject before said solution is
submitted.
113. The method of claim 111, comprising repeating the displaying,
the providing, the receiving, and the analyzing at least once;
wherein said linguistic task and said at least one linguistic clue
upon repetition are different.
114. The method of claim 111, wherein said providing said at least
one to the subject, through the display of the computer, further
comprises selecting said linguistic clues according to a semantic
ability of the subject to be improved.
115. The method of claim 111, wherein said selecting said
linguistic clues further comprises selecting a game world for the
subject, said game world having a plurality of characteristic
features, including at least one or more of instructions,
incentives, type of clues, penalty on display of previous clues,
sequence of clues and time of exposure of a given clue; and
selecting said linguistic clues also according to said game
world.
116. A method for training a semantic ability of a subject, the
method being performed by a computer, the method comprising: a.
displaying a linguistic task to the subject on a display of the
computer, said linguistic task comprising providing one or more
words; b. providing at least one linguistic clue to the subject,
through the display of the computer, said at least one linguistic
clue comprising content capable of activating concepts related to
said one or more words but wherein said content does not include
said one or more words or synonyms thereof, wherein said linguistic
clue comprises an image, audio, video, text or a combination
thereof; c. receiving a solution to said linguistic task by the
subject through the computer; and d. when said solution is not
correct, providing one or more additional linguistic clues to the
subject, said one or more additional linguistic clues comprising
content capable of activating concepts related to said one or more
words but wherein i) said content does not include said one or more
words or synonyms thereof, or ii) when said content does include
said one or more words or synonyms thereof, said content does not
comprise written text.
117. The method of claim 116, further comprising analyzing a
semantic ability of the subject through the computer according to a
diagnostic test and selecting said linguistic task to match said
semantic ability.
118. The method of claim 116, further comprising e. repeating
stages a-d at least once.
119. A method for determining semantic ability of a subject, the
method being performed by a computer, the method comprising: a.
displaying a linguistic task to the subject on a display of the
computer, said linguistic task comprising providing one or more
words by the subject to the computer; b. providing at least one
linguistic clue to the subject, through the display of the
computer, said at least one linguistic clue comprising content
capable of activating concepts related to said one or more words
but wherein said content does not include said one or more words or
synonyms thereof, wherein said linguistic clue comprises an image,
audio, video, text or a combination thereof; c. receiving a
solution to said linguistic task by the subject through the
computer, said solution comprising providing one or more words by
the subject through the computer, the subject integrates said at
least one to solve said linguistic task; and d. analyzing said
solution to determine the semantic ability of the subject.
120. The method of claim 119, wherein said providing said at least
one linguistic clue comprises displaying a plurality of linguistic
clues simultaneously to the subject through said display; wherein
said providing said at least one linguistic clue comprises
displaying said plurality of linguistic clues sequentially to the
subject through said display in a sequence, wherein said sequence
is selected according to a requirement for integration of said
plurality of linguistic clues by the subject and/or according to a
selection by the subject.
121. The method of claim 119, wherein each linguistic clue is
displayed singly in a sequence such that said at least one
linguistic clue is not displayed simultaneously, wherein optionally
the subject selects the clue.
Description
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0001] The present invention, in at least some embodiments, relates
to a system and method for training the semantic ability or
abilities of a subject.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0002] Applications of accumulated knowledge in cognitive
psychology have led to the creation of different interventions to
improve cognitive performance in real life settings. In particular,
applied research has demonstrated that cognitive performance in
various domains can be enhanced by non-invasive computerized
cognitive training programs (Green & Bavelier, 2008; Willis et
al., 2006). While most computerized cognitive training studies have
focused on cognitive skills related to memory, attention and
executive functions, few reports have documented attempts that are
aimed to improve linguistic abilities in general, and language
comprehension in particular, among literate adults.
[0003] Nevertheless, in recent years much progress has been
achieved in the understanding of underlying neuro-cognitive
processes of language comprehension. As opposed to the outdated
notion that all language functions are exclusively lateralized to
the left hemisphere (LH), it is now clear that semantic processing
in the right hemisphere (RH) has a unique contribution to language
comprehension and creative aspects of language (for reviews, see
Beeman & Chiarello, 1998; Kahlaoui, Scherer, & Joanette,
2008; Lindell, 2006; Mitchell & Crow, 2005).
[0004] Numerous conceptualization efforts have been made in order
to account for the asymmetric lateralization of language processing
in the brain (for review, see Dien, 2008). Jung-Beeman (2005) has
suggested the BAIS model (Bilateral Activation, Integration and
Selection) as a comprehensive theoretical framework for the recent
findings on the hemispheric asymmetry in semantic processing.
According to the model, bilateral semantic processes of activation,
integration and selection interact in order to process
language.
[0005] According to the BAIS model (Jung-Beeman, 2005), the RH
coarse semantic processing patterns (diffused semantic activation,
leading to weak activation of multiple concepts remotely associated
to the input, followed by their integration and selection) are
efficient for natural language comprehension, verbal creativity and
similar high-order skills that require the person to integrate
distant and initially irrelevant information. Fine LH semantic
processing patterns (rapid activation, focused on dominant features
which are tightly linked to the input, followed by efficient
integration and selection) are crucial for most language
comprehension tasks, as well as for language production, as they
benefit from the quick activation and selection of contextual
relevant salient meanings--but are less effective when multiple or
less salient meanings are required. For example, when participants
generate a typical use for a noun (e.g., airplane--fly) the LH is
more involved, but when requested to generate an unusual use (e.g.,
airplane--build) higher involvement is detected in the RH (Seger,
Desmond, Glover, & Gabrieli, 2000). Accordingly, as argued by
Jung-Beeman, coarse semantic coding patterns underlie higher level
linguistic tasks, such as inference drawing, metaphor and humor
comprehension, as well as message level comprehension tasks
(deriving themes, generating optimal sentence endings, determining
narrative sequence and inconsistencies) (Jung-Beeman, 2005; on the
notion of coarse and fine semantic coding see also Beeman et al.,
1994, Beeman, 1998).
[0006] Accumulated publications of controlled cognitive training
studies have demonstrated that the learning of new cognitive skills
and the improvement of existing skills is possible across different
populations and ages. For instance, numerous studies have been
successful in enhancing cognitive skills in older adults, with or
without mild cognitive impairments (for reviews, see Jean,
Bergeron, Thivierge, & Simard, 2010; Valenzuela & Sachdev,
2009). The success of training has also been documented in clinical
populations, including patients with schizophrenia (for reviews,
see McGurk, Twamley, Sitzer, McHugo, & Mueser, 2007; Twamley,
Jeste, & Bellack, 2003) and children with ADHD (for review, see
Toplak et al., 2008).
[0007] More than a few studies have shown long lasting effects of
cognitive training, as well as the generalization of the trained
skill in daily untrained tasks (also termed `transfer`, see Blume,
Ford, Baldwin, & Huang, 2010). Unlike other instructional
interventions, cognitive training programs engage participants in
tasks that stimulate target cognitive processes, allowing
participants to explore and acquire new strategies while handling
the training tasks, and later use the acquired skills flexibly in
untrained tasks. For example, a study with air force pilots,
healthy young adults, demonstrated improved real-time flight
performance following training on the `space fortress` game
(Gopher, Weil, & Bareket, 1994; Hart & Battiste, 1992). A
comprehensive clinical trial (n=2832) identified long term effects
of cognitive training in healthy older adults, which were expressed
in trained skills (memory, reasoning and processing speed) as well
as in untrained daily functions, for at least five years after
training (Willis et al., 2006). A computer assisted training
program for children with ADHD resulted in significant improvements
in attention as well as in non-trained academic measures (Shalev,
Tsal, & Mevorach, 2007).
[0008] Moreover, cognitive training effects are not limited to
changes in behavioral performance. Several brain imaging studies
have recently revealed training-induced plasticity in the healthy
human brain (i.e., Dahlin, Neely, Larsson, Backman, & Nyberg,
2008; Erickson et al., 2007; McNab et al., 2009; Olesen,
Westerberg, & Klingberg, 2004).
[0009] While the aforementioned studies did lead to the transfer of
the trained skills into other tasks and situations, other cognitive
training studies did not result in transfer effects. Recent reviews
of computerized cognitive training programs show that controlled
empirical evidence for transfer is limited, due to different causes
related to the interventions themselves, the trainability of the
target skills, and study design (Green & Bavelier, 2008;
Melby-Lervag & Hulme, 2012; Shipstead, Redick, & Engle,
2010).
[0010] While preliminary evidence suggests some promise for
linguistic training, the question remains whether cognitive
training could induce the improvement of linguistic skills in
non-trained linguistic tasks in larger samples.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0011] The background art does not teach or suggest an effective
system and method for determining the semantic ability of a
subject, and/or for training or improving this semantic ability,
whether in normal subjects or in subjects with a deficit in one or
more semantic abilities.
[0012] The present invention, in at least some embodiments,
overcomes these drawbacks of the background art by providing an
effective system and method for determining the semantic ability of
a subject, as well for training or improving this semantic ability,
whether in normal subjects or in subjects with a deficit in one or
more semantic abilities.
[0013] According to at least some embodiments of the present
invention, there is provided a method for training a semantic
ability of a subject, the method being performed by a computer, the
method comprising:
[0014] a. Displaying a linguistic task to the subject on a display
of the computer, said linguistic task comprising providing one or
more words, wherein said linguistic task is directed to training
the subject in a specific semantic skill or skills;
[0015] b. Providing a plurality of linguistic clues to the subject,
through the display of the computer, said plurality of linguistic
clues comprising content capable of activating concepts related to
said one or more words but wherein said content does not include
said one or more words or synonyms thereof, wherein said linguistic
clues are selected such that the subject integrates said plurality
of linguistic clues to solve said linguistic task, wherein said
linguistic clue comprises an image, audio, video, text or a
combination thereof;
[0016] c. Receiving a solution to said linguistic task by the
subject through the computer; and
[0017] d. If said solution is not correct, providing one or more
additional linguistic clues to the subject, said one or more
additional linguistic clues comprising content capable of
activating concepts related to said one or more words, wherein the
subject integrates said one or more additional linguistic clues
with said plurality of linguistic clues to solve said linguistic
task, and wherein i) said content does not include said one or more
words or synonyms thereof, or ii) if said content does include said
one or more words or synonyms thereof, said content does not
comprise written text.
[0018] Optionally said providing one or more words by the subject
comprises entering said one or more words to the computer.
[0019] Optionally said providing one or more words by the subject
comprises identifying said one or more words by the subject.
[0020] Optionally said plurality of clues is revealed
sequentially.
[0021] Optionally each clue is revealed separately, such that only
one clue is revealed at a given time.
[0022] Optionally said providing said linguistic clues to the
subject further comprises penalizing the subject if the subject
requests display of a previously displayed clue.
[0023] Optionally said plurality of clues is revealed
simultaneously.
[0024] Optionally said sequence is selected according to a
requirement for integration of said plurality of linguistic clues
by the subject.
[0025] Optionally said receiving said solution to said linguistic
task comprises analyzing said solution and wherein said analyzing
said solution further comprises analyzing a correctness of said
solution and one or more of a time required to complete said
solution, a number of clues provided to the subject before said
solution is submitted, a number of guesses before the correct
solution was submitted, a number of times previously seen clues
were displayed again, or a combination thereof. Optionally the
method comprises repeating stages a-d at least once.
[0026] Optionally at least one of said linguistic task, said one or
more linguistic clues, the specific instructions or the scoring
system is different upon repetition of stages a-d.
[0027] Optionally said providing said plurality of linguistic clues
to the subject, through the display of the computer, further
comprises selecting said linguistic clues according to a level of
difficulty.
[0028] Optionally said level of difficulty is determined according
to a semantic ability of the subject.
[0029] Optionally said providing said plurality of linguistic clues
to the subject, through the display of the computer, further
comprises selecting said linguistic clues according to a semantic
ability of the subject to be improved.
[0030] Optionally the method further comprises determining a
semantic ability of the subject according to a diagnostic test.
[0031] Optionally a type of said diagnostic test is identical to a
type of said diagnostic test of stage a.
[0032] Optionally said diagnostic test is identical to said
diagnostic test of stage a but with different content.
[0033] Optionally a type of said diagnostic test is different from
a type of said diagnostic test of stage a.
[0034] Optionally said diagnostic test comprises performing the
method of stages a-d at least once.
[0035] Optionally said diagnostic test comprises performing a
different diagnostic test other than the method of stages a-d.
[0036] Optionally said selecting said linguistic clues further
comprises selecting a game world for the subject, said game world
having a plurality of characteristic features, including at least
one or more of instructions, incentives, type of clues, penalty on
display of previous clues, sequence of clues and time of exposure
of a given clue; and selecting said linguistic clues also according
to said game world.
[0037] Optionally the method further comprises providing an
incentive to the subject to provide said solution through the
computer.
[0038] Optionally said incentive comprises one or more of points to
obtain a reward, points convertible to monetary value, points
relating to progress and/or points for comparison between different
users.
[0039] According to at least some embodiments of the present
invention, there is provided a method for determining semantic
ability of a subject, the method being performed by a computer, the
method comprising:
[0040] a. Displaying a linguistic task to the subject on a display
of the computer, said linguistic task comprising providing one or
more words by the subject to the computer;
[0041] b. Providing one or more linguistic clues to the subject,
through the display of the computer, said one or more linguistic
clues comprising content capable of activating concepts related to
said one or more words but wherein i) said content does not include
said one or more words or synonyms thereof, or ii) if said content
does include said one or more words or synonyms thereof, said
content does not comprise written text, wherein said linguistic
clue comprises an image, audio, video, text or a combination
thereof, and wherein said linguistic clues are selected such that
the subject integrates said plurality of linguistic clues to solve
said linguistic task;
[0042] c. Receiving a solution to said linguistic task by the
subject through the computer; and
[0043] d. Analyzing said solution to determine the semantic ability
of the subject.
[0044] Optionally said providing one or more words by the subject
comprises entering said one or more words to the computer.
[0045] Optionally said providing one or more words by the subject
comprises identifying said one or more words by the subject.
[0046] Optionally said one or more linguistic clues comprises a
plurality of clues and wherein said plurality of clues is revealed
sequentially.
[0047] Optionally each clue is revealed separately, such that only
one clue is revealed at a given time.
[0048] Optionally said sequence is selected according to a
requirement for integration of said plurality of linguistic clues
by the subject.
[0049] Optionally said providing one or more linguistic clues to
the subject further comprises penalizing the subject if the subject
requests display of a previously displayed clue.
[0050] Optionally said one or more linguistic clues comprises a
plurality of clues and wherein said plurality of clues is revealed
simultaneously.
[0051] Optionally said analyzing said solution further comprises
analyzing a correctness of said solution and one or more of a time
required to complete said solution or a number of clues provided to
the subject before said solution is submitted.
[0052] Optionally the method comprises repeating stages a-d at
least once.
[0053] Optionally said linguistic task and said one or more
linguistic clues upon repetition of stages a-d are different.
[0054] Optionally said providing said plurality of linguistic clues
to the subject, through the display of the computer, further
comprises selecting said linguistic clues according to a level of
difficulty.
[0055] Optionally said level of difficulty is determined according
to a semantic ability of the subject.
[0056] Optionally said providing said plurality of linguistic clues
to the subject, through the display of the computer, further
comprises selecting said linguistic clues according to a semantic
ability of the subject to be improved.
[0057] Optionally the method further comprises determining a
semantic ability of the subject according to a diagnostic test.
[0058] Optionally a type of said diagnostic test is identical to a
type of said diagnostic test of stage a.
[0059] Optionally said diagnostic test is identical to said
diagnostic test of stage a but with different content.
[0060] Optionally a type of said diagnostic test is different from
a type of said diagnostic test of stage a.
[0061] Optionally said diagnostic test comprises performing the
method of stages a-d at least once.
[0062] Optionally said diagnostic test comprises performing a
different diagnostic test other than the method of stages a-d.
[0063] Optionally said selecting said linguistic clues further
comprises selecting a game world for the subject, said game world
having a plurality of characteristic features, including at least
one or more of instructions, incentives, type of clues, penalty on
display of previous clues, sequence of clues and time of exposure
of a given clue; and selecting said linguistic clues also according
to said game world.
[0064] Optionally the method further comprises providing an
incentive to the subject to provide said solution through the
computer.
[0065] Optionally said incentive comprises one or more of points to
obtain a reward, points convertible to monetary value, points
relating to progress and/or points for comparison between different
users.
[0066] According to at least some embodiments of the present
invention, there is provided a method for training a semantic
ability of a subject, the method being performed by a computer, the
method comprising:
[0067] a. Displaying a linguistic task to the subject on a display
of the computer, said linguistic task comprising providing one or
more words;
[0068] b. Providing one or more linguistic clues to the subject,
through the display of the computer, said one or more linguistic
clues comprising content capable of activating concepts related to
said one or more words but wherein said content does not include
said one or more words or synonyms thereof, wherein said linguistic
clue comprises an image, audio, video, text or a combination
thereof;
[0069] c. Receiving a solution to said linguistic task by the
subject through the computer; and
[0070] d. If said solution is not correct, providing one or more
additional linguistic clues to the subject, said one or more
additional linguistic clues comprising content capable of
activating concepts related to said one or more words but wherein
i) said content does not include said one or more words or synonyms
thereof, or ii) if said content does include said one or more words
or synonyms thereof, said content does not comprise written
text.
[0071] Optionally said providing one or more words by the subject
comprises entering said one or more words to the computer.
[0072] Optionally said providing one or more words by the subject
comprises identifying said one or more words by the subject.
[0073] Optionally said one or more linguistic clues in stages b or
d comprises a plurality of clues and wherein said plurality of
clues is revealed sequentially.
[0074] Optionally each clue is revealed separately, such that only
one clue is revealed at a given time.
[0075] Optionally said providing one or more linguistic clues to
the subject further comprises penalizing the subject if the subject
requests display of a previously displayed clue.
[0076] Optionally said one or more linguistic clues comprises a
plurality of clues and wherein said plurality of clues is revealed
simultaneously.
[0077] Optionally said sequence is selected according to a
requirement for integration of said plurality of linguistic clues
by the subject.
[0078] Optionally said receiving said solution comprises analyzing
said solution and wherein said analyzing said solution further
comprises analyzing a correctness of said solution and one or more
of a time required to complete said solution, a number of clues
provided to the subject before said solution is submitted, a number
of guesses before the correct solution was submitted, a number of
times previously seen clues were displayed again, or a combination
thereof.
[0079] Optionally the method comprises repeating stages a-d at
least once.
[0080] Optionally at least one of said linguistic task, said one or
more linguistic clues, the specific instructions or the scoring
system upon repetition of stages a-d is different.
[0081] Optionally said providing said plurality of linguistic clues
to the subject, through the display of the computer, further
comprises selecting said linguistic clues such that the subject
integrates said plurality of linguistic clues to solve said
linguistic task.
[0082] Optionally said providing said plurality of linguistic clues
to the subject, through the display of the computer, further
comprises selecting said linguistic clues according to a level of
difficulty.
[0083] Optionally said level of difficulty is determined according
to a semantic ability of the subject.
[0084] Optionally said providing said plurality of linguistic clues
to the subject, through the display of the computer, further
comprises selecting said linguistic clues according to a semantic
ability of the subject to be improved.
[0085] Optionally the method further comprises determining a
semantic ability of the subject according to a diagnostic test.
[0086] Optionally a type of said diagnostic test is identical to a
type of said previously performed diagnostic test.
[0087] Optionally said diagnostic test is identical to said
previously performed diagnostic test but with different
content.
[0088] Optionally a type of said diagnostic test is different from
a type of said previously performed diagnostic test.
[0089] Optionally said diagnostic test comprises performing the
method of stages a-d at least once.
[0090] Optionally said diagnostic test comprises performing a
different diagnostic test other than the method of stages a-d.
[0091] Optionally said selecting said linguistic clues further
comprises selecting a game world for the subject, said game world
having a plurality of characteristic features, including at least
one or more of instructions, incentives, type of clues, penalty on
display of previous clues, sequence of clues and time of exposure
of a given clue; and selecting said linguistic clues also according
to said game world.
[0092] Optionally the method further comprises providing an
incentive to the subject to provide said solution through the
computer.
[0093] Optionally said incentive comprises one or more of points to
obtain a reward, points convertible to monetary value, points
relating to progress and/or points for comparison between different
users.
[0094] According to at least some embodiments of the present
invention, there is provided a method for improving a semantic
ability of a subject, the method being performed by a computer, the
method comprising:
[0095] a. Analyzing a semantic ability of the subject through the
computer according to a diagnostic test;
[0096] b. Displaying a linguistic task to the subject on a display
of the computer, said linguistic task comprising providing one or
more words;
[0097] c. Providing one or more linguistic clues to the subject,
through the display of the computer, said one or more linguistic
clues comprising content capable of activating concepts related to
said one or more words but i) said content does not include said
one or more words or synonyms thereof, or ii) if said content does
include said one or more words or synonyms thereof, said content
does not comprise written text, wherein said linguistic clue
comprises an image, audio, video, text or a combination
thereof;
[0098] d. Receiving a solution to said linguistic task by the
subject through the computer;
[0099] e. If said solution is not correct, providing one or more
additional linguistic clues to the subject, said one or more
additional linguistic clues comprising content capable of
activating concepts related to said one or more words but wherein
i) said content does not include said one or more words or synonyms
thereof, or ii) if said content does include said one or more words
or synonyms thereof, said content does not comprise written
text;
[0100] f. Repeating stages b-e at least once.
[0101] Optionally the method further comprises in stage f analyzing
said semantic ability of the subject through the computer according
to a diagnostic test, to determine whether an improvement in said
semantic ability of the subject has occurred.
[0102] Optionally a type of said diagnostic test is identical to a
type of said diagnostic test of stage a.
[0103] Optionally said diagnostic test is identical to said
diagnostic test of stage a but with different content.
[0104] Optionally a type of said diagnostic test is different from
a type of said diagnostic test of stage a.
[0105] Optionally the method further comprises in stage g,
repeating stages b-e at least once and altering at least one of
said linguistic task, said one or more linguistic clues, the
specific instructions, the scoring system or a level of difficulty
thereof according to said diagnostic test of stage f.
[0106] Optionally said providing one or more words by the subject
comprises entering said one or more words to the computer.
[0107] Optionally said providing one or more words by the subject
comprises identifying said one or more words by the subject.
[0108] Optionally said one or more linguistic clues in stages b or
d comprises a plurality of clues and wherein said plurality of
clues is revealed sequentially.
[0109] Optionally each clue is revealed separately, such that only
one clue is revealed at a given time.
[0110] Optionally said providing one or more linguistic clues to
the subject further comprises penalizing the subject if the subject
requests display of a previously displayed clue.
[0111] Optionally said one or more linguistic clues comprises a
plurality of clues and wherein said plurality of clues is revealed
simultaneously.
[0112] Optionally said sequence is selected according to a
requirement for integration of said plurality of linguistic clues
by the subject.
[0113] Optionally said receiving said solution comprises analyzing
said solution and wherein said analyzing said solution further
comprises analyzing a correctness of said solution and one or more
of a time required to complete said solution, a number of clues
provided to the subject before said solution is submitted, a number
of times previously displayed clues were displayed again and a
combination thereof.
[0114] Optionally said selecting said linguistic clues further
comprises selecting a game world for the subject, said game world
having a plurality of characteristic features, wherein at least one
of said linguistic task, said one or more linguistic clues, the
specific instructions or the scoring system upon repetition of
stages a-d is different; and selecting said linguistic clues also
according to said game world.
[0115] Optionally the method further comprises providing an
incentive to the subject to provide said solution through the
computer.
[0116] Optionally said incentive comprises one or more of points to
obtain a reward, points convertible to monetary value, points
relating to progress and/or points for comparison between different
users.
[0117] Optionally said providing said plurality of linguistic clues
to the subject, through the display of the computer, further
comprises selecting said linguistic clues such that the subject
integrates said plurality of linguistic clues to solve said
linguistic task.
[0118] Optionally said providing said plurality of linguistic clues
to the subject, through the display of the computer, further
comprises selecting said linguistic clues according to a level of
difficulty.
[0119] Optionally said level of difficulty is determined according
to a semantic ability of the subject.
[0120] Optionally said providing said plurality of linguistic clues
to the subject, through the display of the computer, further
comprises selecting said linguistic clues according to a semantic
ability of the subject to be improved.
[0121] According to at least some embodiments of the present
invention, there is provided a method for determining semantic
ability of a subject, the method being performed by a computer, the
method comprising:
[0122] a. Displaying a linguistic task to the subject on a display
of the computer, said linguistic task comprising providing one or
more words by the subject to the computer;
[0123] b. Providing one or more linguistic clues to the subject,
through the display of the computer, said one or more linguistic
clues comprising content capable of activating concepts related to
said one or more words but wherein said content does not include
said one or more words or synonyms thereof, wherein said linguistic
clue comprises an image, audio, video, text or a combination
thereof;
[0124] c. Receiving a solution to said linguistic task by the
subject through the computer, said solution comprising providing
one or more words by the subject through the computer, the subject
integrates said plurality of linguistic clues to solve said
linguistic task; and
[0125] d. Analyzing said solution to determine the semantic ability
of the subject.
[0126] Optionally said providing said one or more linguistic clues
comprises displaying a plurality of linguistic clues simultaneously
to the subject through said display.
[0127] Optionally said providing said one or more linguistic clues
comprises displaying said plurality of linguistic clues
sequentially to the subject through said display in a sequence,
wherein said sequence is selected according to a requirement for
integration of said plurality of linguistic clues by the subject
and/or according to a selection by the subject.
[0128] Optionally each linguistic clue is displayed singly in said
sequence such that said plurality of linguistic clues is not
displayed simultaneously, wherein optionally the subject selects
the clue.
[0129] Optionally stages a-d are repeated at least once, optionally
with one or more differences.
[0130] According to at least some embodiments of the present
invention, there is provided a method for improving a semantic
ability of a subject having a compromised semantic ability, the
method being performed by a computer, the method comprising:
[0131] a. Analyzing the compromised semantic ability of the subject
through the computer according to a diagnostic test;
[0132] b. Displaying a linguistic task to the subject on a display
of the computer, said linguistic task comprising providing one or
more words, said linguistic task being selected according to a
result of said diagnostic test;
[0133] c. Providing one or more linguistic clues to the subject,
through the display of the computer, said one or more linguistic
clues comprising content capable of activating concepts related to
said one or more words but i) said content does not include said
one or more words or synonyms thereof, or ii) if said content does
include said one or more words or synonyms thereof, said content
does not comprise written text, wherein said linguistic clue
comprises an image, audio, video, text or a combination thereof,
the subject integrates said plurality of linguistic clues to solve
said linguistic task;
[0134] d. Receiving a solution to said linguistic task by the
subject through the computer;
[0135] e. If said solution is not correct, providing one or more
additional linguistic clues to the subject, said one or more
additional linguistic clues comprising content capable of
activating concepts related to said one or more words but wherein
i) said content does not include said one or more words or synonyms
thereof, or ii) if said content does include said one or more words
or synonyms thereof, said content does not comprise written
text;
[0136] f. Repeating stages b-e at least once.
[0137] Optionally the method further comprises analyzing said
semantic ability of the subject through the computer according to a
diagnostic test, wherein said diagnostic test is identical or
different from said diagnostic test of stage a, to determine
whether an improvement in said compromised semantic ability of the
subject has occurred.
[0138] Optionally said providing one or more linguistic clues to
the subject further comprises selecting said one or more linguistic
clues according to said result of said diagnostic test.
[0139] Optionally a level of difficulty of stages b-e is selected
according to said result of said diagnostic test.
[0140] Optionally a level of difficulty of stages b-e is selected
according to a result of previously performing stages b-e by the
subject.
[0141] Unless otherwise defined, all technical and scientific terms
used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art to which this invention belongs. The
materials, methods, and examples provided herein are illustrative
only and not intended to be limiting.
[0142] Implementation of the method and system of the present
invention involves performing or completing certain selected tasks
or stages manually, automatically, or a combination thereof.
Moreover, according to actual instrumentation and equipment of
preferred embodiments of the method and system of the present
invention, several selected stages could be implemented by hardware
or by software on any operating system of any firmware or a
combination thereof. For example, as hardware, selected stages of
the invention could be implemented as a chip or a circuit. As
software, selected stages of the invention could be implemented as
a plurality of software instructions being executed by a computer
using any suitable operating system. In any case, selected stages
of the method and system of the invention could be described as
being performed by a data processor, such as a computing platform
for executing a plurality of instructions.
[0143] Although the present invention is described with regard to a
"computer" on a "computer network", it should be noted that
optionally any device featuring a data processor and/or the ability
to execute one or more instructions may be described as a computer,
including but not limited to a PC (personal computer), a server, a
minicomputer, a cellular telephone, a mobile device, a PDA
(personal data assistant), a tablet or the like. Any two or more of
such devices in communication with each other, and/or any computer
in communication with any other computer may optionally comprise a
"computer network".
[0144] Optionally a computer network may comprise a wired
communication network, including but not limited to a PSTN (public
switched telephone network) and/or other wired telephone and/or
circuit-switched network, an optical communication network, a
fiber-optic communication network and the like or RF network,
and/or any combination of the aforesaid networks, which may
optionally be private or public networks; and a wireless data
network including but not limited to a cellular network, a WiMAX
network, an EV-DO network, an RTT network, a Flash-OFDM network, an
iBurst network, a HSPA network, an EDGE network, a GPRS network, a
GPS satellite network, a Wi-Fi network, a UTMS network, and/or any
combination of the aforesaid networks, which may optionally be
private or public networks. Combinations of wired and wireless
networks may also optionally be employed.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0145] The invention is herein described, by way of example only,
with reference to the accompanying drawings. With specific
reference now to the drawings in detail, it is stressed that the
particulars shown are by way of example and for purposes of
illustrative discussion of the preferred embodiments of the present
invention only, and are presented in order to provide what is
believed to be the most useful and readily understood description
of the principles and conceptual aspects of the invention. In this
regard, no attempt is made to show structural details of the
invention in more detail than is necessary for a fundamental
understanding of the invention, the description taken with the
drawings making apparent to those skilled in the art how the
several forms of the invention may be embodied in practice.
[0146] In the drawings:
[0147] FIGS. 1A and 1B show different embodiments of a system
according to the present invention;
[0148] FIG. 2 shows a more detailed diagram of a system according
to FIG. 1A;
[0149] FIG. 3 shows an ERD diagram of the software according to at
least some embodiments of the present invention;
[0150] FIG. 4 shows a method according to at least some embodiments
of the present invention;
[0151] FIG. 5 shows a more detailed method according to at least
some embodiments of the present invention;
[0152] FIGS. 6A and 6B relate to illustrative, optional,
non-limiting methods for further improvement according to at least
some embodiments of the present invention;
[0153] FIG. 7 relates to exemplary screenshots according to at
least some embodiments of the present invention;
[0154] FIG. 8 relates to an exemplary method for improving a
semantic ability of a subject with a semantic deficit according to
at least some embodiments of the present invention; and
[0155] FIGS. 9-24 show data obtained by testing a system and method
according to at least some embodiments of the present invention on
a group of individuals.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF AT LEAST SOME EMBODIMENTS
[0156] Turning now to the drawings, FIG. 1 shows two exemplary,
illustrative non-limiting configurations of a system according to
some embodiments of the present invention. FIG. 1A shows a system
featuring a server and client, while FIG. 1B shows an electronic
device operating stand-alone software. For these non-limiting
examples, the linguistic tasks are described as being performed
through a game, but the present invention is not limited to such a
performance.
[0157] Turning to FIG. 1A, as shown, a system 100 features an end
user computer 102 for enabling the user to perform the linguistic
tasks to reach a solution as part of operating a game. End user
computer may optionally feature an input device 120, which may also
optionally be able to communicate separately as shown. End user
computer 102 communicates with a game manager 104, for managing the
game and for optionally providing at least part of the game
functionality, through a computer network 106, which for example
may optionally be implemented as the Internet. For example and
without limitation, game manager 104 may optionally set linguistic
tasks, select levels of difficulty, optionally perform one or more
pre or post diagnostic tests and so forth.
[0158] End user computer 102 may optionally have software installed
on it (not shown) and/or may rely upon game manager 104 for
supplying the game functionality. For this example, a significant
amount of the game functionality (if not all of it) is provided
through game manager 104. Game manager 104 at least performs the
following functions: managing the inquiries of the user during a
stage, allowing navigation between stages, determining the level of
difficulty at each stage (for example, determining the rules of the
game and/or the clues to be supplied) and also building and
providing the clues themselves. Game manager 104 also preferably
determines whether a solution is correct and keeps score (or
otherwise assesses the interactions of the user with the game).
Game manager 104 also supports game-related customizations, for
example optionally including but not limited to providing
performance based feedback and adapting training program (including
number of training sessions, composition of each session (frequency
of different game worlds), content of each stage and level of
difficulty).
[0159] Optionally a game manager may also be present at end user
computer 102 (not shown; see FIGS. 1A and 2).
[0160] Optionally, the user may interact with the game through a
web browser (not shown), such that the game functionality may be
provided through a plug-in or other connective software.
Implementation through a web browser also optionally enables the
software to have a "zero footprint" and hence to not be installed
permanently on end user computer 102.
[0161] To assist with embodiments in which game manager 104 may
optionally provide at least some of the game functionality, system
100 may optionally feature a web server 108, for example for
enabling at least some of the game functionality to be provided
through a web browser on end user computer 102, with or without
such installed software as plug-ins and the link.
[0162] Linguistic tasks (particularly components required to
perform such tasks), information about levels of difficulty,
diagnostic tests and so forth may optionally be stored on a game
database 110, operated by a game database server 112 as shown. For
example and without limitation, game database 110 may optionally
store user performance history (including all of the actions that
the user performs with regard to end user computer 102, even not
related to the game--such as viewing reports and graphs etc.--in
order to improve the user's experience with the game). Game
database 110 also stores the clues and clue components, for example
including but not limited to media files such as images and sound
files (alternatively these items may be stored at web server 108
(not shown)). Game database 110 also stores general information
about the user, various characteristics and definitions for the
game (including but not limited to game rules, game appearance,
including game "skins", different levels of each game), various
system parameters and user groups, and/or may also optionally store
one or more of results of diagnostic tests (whether they were
carried within the system or externally); logs and tracks progress
measures beyond score (time, number of guesses, number of clues
accessed--per stage) and also optionally training programs and
feedback content.
[0163] FIG. 1B shows another optional, exemplary embodiment
according to the present invention, in which a system 150 features
an electronic device 152 operating stand-alone software, shown as a
game manager 158. Electronic device 152 may optionally be any type
of computer as described herein and/or may optionally be a special
purpose device designed to implement the game.
[0164] As shown, electronic device 152 features a processor 154 for
performing one or more computations and hence for supporting
operation of game manager 158. Electronic device 152 also features
memory 156 for storing information, preferably permanently, which
includes such data as required for operation of the game, for
example optionally including the various types of data stored in
game database 110 of FIG. 1A.
[0165] In system 150, game manager 158 optionally performs at least
the following local functions, even if not operating as a
stand-alone software: controlling security and usability, rule
enforcement and managing user interactions with the game. For
example, game manager 158 may optionally and preferably determine
whether one or more solutions of the user are correct, and may also
optionally "keep score" (for a game implementation). Game manager
158 optionally and preferably also controls security, for example
to prevent hacking of the game. Usability may optionally relate to
determining the difficulty of clues, the order in which they are
presented, how they are displayed on electronic device 152, how the
user may enter solutions or request more information (for example
to request further clues to be displayed). Rule enforcement may
optionally relate to game rules, for example preventing the user
from viewing more than one clue at a time (if this is a rule of the
game). Game manager 158 may also optionally determine penalties
according to the game rules; for example, if the user wishes to
reveal a clue that was already revealed, then a penalty of point
deduction from the user's score is assessed. Game manager 158 also
preferably assists with timing the user if that is important for
game assessment; for example, measuring the length of time required
for the user to enter any solution or a correct solution, or the
timing between clue requests and so forth.
[0166] However, game manager 158 may also optionally operate as a
completely "stand alone" module, in which case game manager 158
preferably incorporates further functionality from the game manager
located at the server for FIGS. 1A and 2.
[0167] Electronic device 152 also features an input device 160,
such as a keyboard, mouse, joystick or other pointing device, for
receiving commands from the user. Such an input device 160 may
optionally be implemented with end user computer 102 of FIG. 1A
(not shown).
[0168] Electronic device 152 may optionally feature a display
screen 162 for displaying one or more linguistic tasks, clues,
information displayed to the user or entered by the user, and so
forth. Optionally display screen 162 may be combined with input
device 160 in the form of a touch screen (not shown) which again
may optionally be implemented with end user computer 102 of FIG.
1A.
[0169] Electronic device 152 may also optionally feature a
communication apparatus 164, for communicating with external
computers and/or databases (not shown), for example to obtain more
information, linguistic tasks, clues and so forth.
[0170] FIG. 2 shows system 100 with additional details regarding
various components of each entity. As shown, user computer 102
features a web browser 200, comprising a UI manager 202 and a
business logic software 204. Business logic software 204 comprises
a game manager 206 and an AJAX client 208. AJAX client 208 may
optionally be implemented through other types of technologies, but
preferably is implemented through a technology that supports
similar asynchronous data retrieval from web server 108 as
shown.
[0171] Business logic software 204 preferably manages the overall
aspects of the game that are controlled from end user computer 102,
which are optionally and preferably more local in nature, as
described with regard to the operation of game manager 206 below.
Alternatively, business logic software 204 may optionally manage
more aspects of the game if "local" is defined more broadly, or
fewer aspects of the game if "local" is defined more narrowly.
[0172] Optionally, business logic software 204 may be separate from
web browser 200; combining it with web browser 200 may optionally
be implemented for browser plug-ins and other similar software
configurations. Also AJAX client 208 may optionally be separate
from business logic software 204 or otherwise separate from game
manager 206; for example, AJAX client 208 may optionally be
implemented at UI manager 202. In addition, AJAX client 208 does
not need to be an AJAX client; other types of client support
software are also contemplated within the present invention. AJAX
client 208 does preferably support client-side interactions (that
is, at end user computer 102) with the server (that is, web server
108, which also may optionally be implemented as any suitable type
of server that can interact with the client at end user computer
102).
[0173] UI manager 202 preferably handles the direct display aspects
of the user interface displayed by end user computer 102, in
conjunction with functionality supplied by AJAX client 208. In
addition, UI manager 202 preferably supports interactions of the
user with end user computer 102, for example with an input device,
such as a keyboard or pointing device.
[0174] Game manager 206 preferably operates as described with
regard to the game manager of FIG. 1A, at least with regard to
those functions described as being local in nature. For example,
game manager 206 preferably controls security and usability,
performs rule enforcement and manages user interactions with the
game. For example, game manager 206 may optionally and preferably
determine whether one or more solutions of the user are correct
(alternatively this may be determined at game manager 104), and may
also optionally "keep score" (for a game implementation). Game
manager 206 optionally and preferably also controls security, for
example to prevent hacking of the game. Usability may optionally
relate to determining how clues are displayed on end user computer
102, how the user may enter solutions or request more information
(for example to request further clues to be displayed). Rule
enforcement may optionally relate to game rules, for example
preventing the user from viewing more than one clue at a time (if
this is a rule of the game). Game manager 206 may also optionally
determine penalties according to the game rules; for example, if
the user wishes to reveal a clue that was already revealed, then a
penalty of point deduction from the user's score is assessed. Game
manager 206 also preferably assists with timing the user if that is
important for game assessment; for example, measuring the length of
time required for the user to enter any solution or a correct
solution, or the timing between clue requests and so forth.
However, such information as the game world implementation and the
clues themselves are preferably downloaded from web server 108.
[0175] As shown web browser 200 retrieves data, through computer
network 106 as previously described, from web server 108, which may
optionally be configured as shown. In this configuration, web
server 108 preferably comprises one or more web service
technologies, such as (for example and without limitation), a web
server 210 (shown as an Apache web server for illustration only)
and PHP web service 212. Different types of technologies could
optionally be used in place of this combination, optionally
including any suitable web server technology and other supportive
technologies such as Ruby on Rails, Python and the like. However,
such technologies are preferably able to interact with the client
at end user computer 102.
[0176] Web server 108 also preferably features a business logic
software 214, comprising a user sessions manager 216 and a game
manager 218. As for business logic 204 of end user computer 102,
business logic 214 manages those aspects of the game that are
implemented at web server 108, for example as described with regard
to game manager 104 below.
[0177] Business logic 214 manages any aspects of the game that are
not managed through business logic 204; therefore, the greater the
role of business logic 204, the lesser the role of business logic
214 and vice versa. Business logic 214 at least needs to handle
those aspects of the game that are managed at web server 108.
[0178] Business logic 214 is in communication with game manager 104
through a game manager interface 226. However, if game manager 104
is operated by web server 108, game manager 104 may optionally be
incorporated with business logic 214 as shown.
[0179] Game manager 104 preferably comprises a rules manager 216
for managing the rules, including without limitation determining
the rules, selecting rules according to a level of difficulty
and/or game implementation, and so forth. Rules manager 216 is
optionally operated as a rules engine, in which inquiries are
dynamically processed to determine a dynamic output, or may
alternatively operate more as a look-up apparatus.
[0180] Game manager 104 also preferably comprises a stage manager
218 for determining the level of difficulty experienced by the
user. Stage manager 218 preferably provides input regarding this
level of difficulty to rules manager 216, so that the correct rules
are selected for any particular stage of the game. The stages
themselves are optionally also managed through business logic 214,
through a user sessions manager 228, which keeps track of user
interactions with the game, including but not limited to "how well"
the user is performing with regard to the game. "How well" the user
is doing is optionally determined according to one or more of the
score of the user and/or timing of the user as described above, and
so forth--preferably as determined by the rules of the game through
rules manager 216. Other optional parameters include number of
clues accessed or re-opened; and the number of incorrect guesses
(solutions).
[0181] Stage manager 218 and user sessions manager 228 both
optionally and preferably receive input from a score manager 220,
which determines "how well" the user is performing the game as
described above. Stage manager 218 may also optionally choose the
next level which may alternatively be pre-determined by the system
administrator.
[0182] A clue builder 222 preferably builds the clues, according to
input from rules manager 216, from various clue components which
may optionally include one or more images, audio files, video
files, text files and the like. Clue builder 222 preferably has a
rules interpreter (not shown) for interpreting the rules to build
the clues; alternatively, such as rules interpreter may be located
at rules manager 216 (not shown). Clue builder 222 may also
optionally use pre-defined clue templates that can be edited any
time by the system administrator to allow skinning; that is,
changing the structure of the presented clue and/or its
appearance.
[0183] A system generated feedback and difficulty adaptation module
224 preferably supplies feedback to rules manager 216 and also
optionally to clue builder 222 and/or stage manager 218, according
to information received from user sessions manager 228 and/or stage
manager 218 and/or score manager 220, or some combination of these
entities (for example, optionally and preferably information is
received both from user sessions manager 228 and score manager
220).
[0184] FIG. 3 shows an exemplary, non-limiting, illustrative entity
relationship model (ERD) with regard to the operation of game
manager 104. An ERD 300 is provided for the purpose of illustration
only, as many different software constructions and implementations
are possible and contemplated within the scope of the present
invention.
[0185] As shown, ERD 300 comprises a clues table 302, which is a
table used for storing information about the clues such as their
type (sound, image, video, text etc.), whether they can be
re-opened (that is displayed more than once to the user) and/or
whether they have a special game function (for example, acting as a
rescue wheel as described in greater detail below). Clues can also
be interactive and require the user to answer a question, in which
case a text box will be attached to the clue presentation layout
and the correct answer will be stored in the metadata column. In
addition, clues may have scores, for example for a penalty on
reopening the clue or a prize for providing a correct answer for
interactive clues.
[0186] Clues table 302 is in communication with a stages table 326.
Stages table 326 is a table used to define the different stages.
Each stage is linked with a world using the world property. The
table also contains global information about the stages such as the
solution to the stage and rules enforcement definitions (such as
enforcing clue opening order).
[0187] Stages table 326 is in turn in contact with a worlds table
318. A world is a pre-defined set of stages (each stage is a
linguistic task with one solution). The worlds table 318 is used to
define global information about the worlds (including but not
limited to world name, global rules overrides, etc.).
[0188] Worlds table 318 is in contact with a user worlds table 316,
which is in turn in contact with a users table 320 and a sessions
table 314. User worlds table 316 is a table used to describe a
user's performance within the worlds (a summary, such as number of
stages completed etc.).
[0189] Users table 320 is a table containing general information
about the user, such as their encrypted password, last login time,
name; the table also links each user to a specified group in a
usergroups table 322. Usergroups table 322 is a table containing
definitions of each group. Each user has to be assigned to a group
(using the users table 320). Each group is than assigned to a
certain path built out of a specific set of worlds defined
customized specifically for that group. For example and without
limitation, different groups could relate to the speed with which
the level of difficulty increases, the initial level of difficulty,
specific semantic abilities which are to be trained or otherwise
improved, and so forth.
[0190] A session is a set of worlds and/or different levels of
difficulty of the game or any other divisions therefore within a
single performance of the game by the user. Session table 314 is
used for basic definition of the sessions that exists in the system
(mainly the session name).
[0191] Users table 320 is also in contact with user stages table
324 as previously described, which is in turn in contact with a
stage statuses table 328, which relates to the status of each
stage.
[0192] A cluetemplates table 304 is a table used for defining the
presentation layout of each of the clue types. Each clue type and
language combination has a different layout. The layout is
specified inside the template column using code that is compatible
with the user interface technology on the end user computer, such
as (for example and without limitation) HTML and JavaScript.
[0193] A clueTypes table 306 is a table used as a helper map for
defining the types of clues that exists in the system
(again--image, sound, video, text etc.). ClueTypes table 306 is in
contact with cluetemplates table 304 and clues table 302. Clues
table 302 is in contact with cluetemplates table 304, which in turn
is in communication with cluetypes table 306.
[0194] Sessiongroups table 308 is a table used for mapping sessions
to user groups. Each user group will go through numerous sessions
each containing numerous worlds (each containing numerous levels).
The table is also used to define a rule to enforce between each
session (such as usage limit, where a user needs to wait x hours
before the user is permitted to attempt the next session, upon
completing the previous one).
[0195] Sessiongroups table 308 is also in contact with session
table 314 and usergroups table 322.
[0196] A sessionmap table 310 is a table used for mapping numerous
worlds to each session, for specifying which worlds each session
will include and order in which the worlds are navigated.
[0197] Sessionmap table 310 is in contact with sessions table 314
and worlds table 318.
[0198] Userstages table 324 is a table containing the performance
information for every stage the user attempted to solve, including
information such as the current score, the result of the level
(user can either solve of skip) and total clues that were
opened.
[0199] FIG. 4 is a diagram of an illustrative, non-limiting method
of at least some embodiments for performing a game as described
herein for training the semantic ability of a subject (user as
described herein), for example in FIGS. 1-3. However, the below
method is not limited to implementation with the system of any of
FIGS. 1-3 and may optionally be implemented differently.
Furthermore, for this non-limiting example of a game, the following
structure is discussed for the sake of clarity only. Within the
game, each session is composed of a plurality of worlds. Each world
is composed of a plurality of stages. Each stage has one task, one
solution and a plurality of clues.
[0200] As shown, in stage 1 an electronic device is provided to the
user, which in this example is an end user computer, for example as
shown in FIG. 1A and FIG. 2. If the electronic device is
standalone, then most, if not all, of the functionality will be
performed by the electronic device and will not be shared with a
server, as in this exemplary method.
[0201] In stage 2, the end user computer communicates with a game
manager, for example through a web server as described with regard
to FIGS. 1A and 2. In stage 3, the game manager optionally
determines a level of difficulty that the user should encounter in
the game itself. Stage 3 may optionally be performed periodically
throughout the game.
[0202] In stage 4, the game manager provides a linguistic task to
the user through the end user computer, in which the linguistic
task requires the user to provide one or more words to the game
manager through the end user computer, whether by entering the
words (for example through the keyboard), selecting the words from
a list and so forth. The task is optionally and preferably selected
according to the previously determined level of difficulty.
In stage 5, the user may optionally provide a solution directly,
but would typically be expected to request the provision of one or
more linguistic clues to determine the solution (that is, the words
to provide through the end user computer). Such one or more
linguistic clues comprise content capable of activating concepts
related to said one or more words. However, such content does not
include said one or more words or synonyms thereof. The linguistic
clue optionally comprises an image, audio, video, text or a
combination thereof, each unit of which is referred to as a
"linguistic clue component" above. The linguistic clue is also
optionally and preferably selected according to the above described
level of difficulty.
[0203] Optionally and preferably, the user is not able to provide a
solution (or "guess"), without viewing a plurality of clues, so
that integration occurs.
Optionally and preferably, such content does not include one or
more words or synonyms thereof as described above, but also
optionally, if the content does include the one or more words or
synonyms thereof, the content does not comprise written text.
Optionally, if a plurality of linguistic clues is provided, the
clues are provided simultaneously. Optionally and preferably, if a
plurality of linguistic clues is provided, the clues are provided
sequentially. By "sequentially" it is meant singly (that is, each
clue is provided separately) or alternatively, that more than one
clue may be provided at once but still not all clues are displayed
simultaneously. The order may optionally be chosen by the user or
by the software (system). Also optionally the plurality of
linguistic clues may be selected such that the user integrates the
plurality of linguistic clues to solve the linguistic task as noted
previously.
[0204] Optionally the user may be requested to complete a task
within a clue (reading a text passage for example).
Optionally, there is some type of limit on the length of time that
a user can view a linguistic clue, such that in stage 6, the clue
is concealed from further viewing by the user. The user may
optionally also be prevented from seeing another clue until a
minimum period of time has elapsed. Optionally the user may be able
to request to see the clue again, for example with a penalty
according to the rules of the game. Stages 4-6 may optionally be
performed more than once, but preferably scoring of the game is at
least partially determined according to such factors as the number
of incorrect solutions to the task, time taken to find the correct
solution, number of clues viewed once, number of clues viewed more
than once and so forth. In stage 7, the user enters a solution to
the end user computer. In stage 8, the solution is analyzed by the
end user computer and/or by the game manager to determine the
semantic ability of the subject, for example according to the above
parameters. Again, stages 4-8 are optionally performed more than
once, for example to facilitate playing a complete game by the
user, in which a game comprises more than one level, or
additionally or alternatively may optionally comprise more than one
game world. In this embodiment, different game worlds may
optionally relate to the emphasis change protocol as is known in
the art training non-linguistic skills, but which has never been
implemented for training linguistic skills (semantic abilities).
Some non-limiting examples of such game worlds include: [0205] 1.
Baseline--in this world, there are no special emphasis or rules.
Participants are required to perform the basic task--open (display)
the clues and guess (provide) the solution; where the optimal
behavior of using the least amount of clues and guesses is highly
rewarded. [0206] 2. Simplified--this is a simplified version of the
baseline world. This world places a reduced load on memory
capabilities, by permitting repeated access to clues at no cost.
This world was used for on boarding the participants and allowing
them to explore the game rules in a low demanding environment; and
was presented at later stages to allow participants to explore
different strategies for solving the basic task when the memory
load is lower. [0207] 3. high-memory load--in this world,
participants had to perform the basic task, with one
constraint--re-opening a clue had a high cost. This manipulation
was intended to guide participants to use their working memory more
proficiently while performing the semantic exercise. [0208] 4. Deep
dive--in this world, participants had to perform the basic task,
with one constraint--they had to spend more time on selected clues.
This manipulation was intended to guide participants to explore
strategies that lean on deep elaboration of semantic networks
around the presented concepts. [0209] 5. High-processing load--in
this world, the clues' content, number and structure was
manipulated such that the participants' cognitive resources' load
was increased. Examples include longer passages, texts with
frequently missing words, and more clues overall. This manipulation
guided participants to explore less demanding strategies and adapt
the use of existing strategies to ever more demanding contexts.
[0210] 6. Context dependent--in this world, the clues' content and
proximity was manipulated such that some clues provided essential
context for interpretation of other clues or their relation to the
solution word. For instance, two clues may optionally be provided
that allude to the same phrase (that includes the solution word),
each is associated to that phrase in a different way (e.g.,
solution word `blood`, clue 1: a text about unique siblings
relationship, clue 2: a sentence about inherited qualities shared
among relatives--both clues allude to `blood relations`). This
manipulation was intended to guide participants to explore
strategies of semantic activation that are more context-dependent.
[0211] 7. Literal and non-literal--in this world, clues' content
was manipulated such that some clues referred to the solution word
in a figurative way, and others--in a literal way. For instance,
for the solution word `bush`, there would be clues referring to the
literal meaning of `beating around the bush` (e.g., an image of
people beating something while standing around it) and others--to
the figurative meaning (e.g., a quote of someone complaining that
the conversation went on and on without hitting the painful
matters). This manipulation was intended to practice participants
in flexibility of activating and maintaining meanings that are
related to a concept in different ways. [0212] 8. Ambiguous--in
this world, the clues' content was manipulated such that selected
clues were associated with each other in an ambiguous way--allowing
more than one association between some of the clues. By introducing
distractions, this manipulation demanded participants to inhibit
possible associations in order to discover the one association that
connects all clues. To allow that, participants were encouraged to
read all clues (as opposed to the minimal number of clues). This
manipulation practiced inhibitions of irrelevant concepts, an
important subcomponent of successful semantic processing. [0213] 9.
Filter the distractions--In this world, the rules has changed--one
of the clues was not associated with the solution word.
Participants were encouraged to open all clues and come up with a
solution word that is associated to most clues, but not all of
them. This manipulation practiced the skill of inhibiting
irrelevant concepts. [0214] 10. Broad associations--in this world,
the participants were encouraged to open all available clues (at no
cost). This manipulation emphasized activation of a broad semantic
network, as opposed to integrating remote associations based on the
least possible number of clues.
[0215] Each game world preferably comprises different rules and may
also optionally feature different linguistic tasks and/or clues
(although optionally, one or more of tasks, clues or clue
components is shared between the different worlds), and/or may
optionally have different scoring systems. Each game world may also
optionally have a different "skin" or visual appearance.
[0216] FIG. 5 is a diagram of a more detailed, illustrative,
non-limiting method of at least some embodiments for performing a
game as described herein, for example in FIGS. 1-3. However, the
below method is not limited to implementation with the system of
any of FIGS. 1-3 and may optionally be implemented differently.
[0217] Stages 1 and 2 are performed as in FIG. 4. In stage 3, the
game manager optionally provides a diagnostic test for the user to
perform on the end user computer (alternatively, no such test is
performed, a different test is performed and/or the game itself
serves as a test). In stage 4, the diagnostic test is performed and
in stage 5, the game manager (or alternatively another entity)
analyses the results to determine a level of difficulty that the
user should encounter in the game itself.
[0218] Stages 6-11 optionally correspond with stages 3-8 of FIG. 4;
however, optionally various incentives are provided to the user for
playing the game. For example, such incentives may optionally
comprise (without limitation) points, positive messages, viewing of
entertaining content (images, videos and/or text) or listening to
an audio clip.
[0219] Stages 7-11 are optionally performed more than once. Also
optionally, stages 5-11 are performed more than once. Stage 5 may
optionally be performed periodically throughout the game.
[0220] In stage 12, another diagnostic test is optionally performed
to see whether the user improved. As for the first diagnostic test
in stage 3, optionally no such test is performed, a different test
is performed and/or the game itself serves as a test. The
diagnostic tests of stage 3 and 12 may optionally be the same or
different, or may optionally be of the same or different type or
category.
[0221] The method of either FIG. 4 or 5 may optionally be performed
in the course of playing a game for many different populations of
individuals, for example and without limitation for individuals
seeking semantic language ability improvement (including but not
limited to individuals seeking greater proficiency in their native
language; translators; students about to be tested on language
ability) and also for semantic language ability assessment, as well
as for pedagogical methods for foreign languages or native
languages. The assessment and/or treatment of abnormal semantic
language ability, including both ability testing and improvement,
are described with regard to FIG. 8 below.
[0222] FIGS. 6A and 6B relate to illustrative, optional,
non-limiting methods for further improvement according to at least
some embodiments of the present invention. FIG. 6A relates to the
optional provision of feedback while FIG. 6B relates to the
optional provision of guided exercises. Either method may
optionally feature training examples for normal individuals,
foreign language translation and/or assistance in studying for
aptitude tests. It should be noted that although this method is
being described as a standalone method, the method is optionally
and preferably performed with the methods of FIG. 4 or 5, such that
FIG. 6A describe a process that optionally and preferably would
occur during the processes describe in FIGS. 4 and 5, while FIG. 6B
describes a process that will optionally occur after the processes
described on FIG. 4 or 5 has occurred at least once (and preferably
more than once).
[0223] FIG. 6A relates to the provision of feedback. An important
component of the training method is formative feedback which is
preferably provided intermittently--hence the potential requirement
to interleave this method with the above described methods. This
feedback is intended to create Knowledge of Results--enabling the
trainees to understand not only their performance, but also its
potential impact on their learning process and real-world goals. In
the future, more data may be used to provide a comparison of the
trainee's performance to norms and/of a personal baseline.
[0224] In stage 1, optionally evaluative feedback is provided
continuously at various stages of the game. This feedback is
intended to facilitate the game play and reinforce the reward
scheme as incentive for desired behaviors in every point in the
training. Such evaluative feedback optionally comprises input-based
feedback: Immediate feedback is provided in reaction to all inputs
from the participant (i.e. when responding on a clue/surprise, or
guessing the solution). This feedback includes performance feedback
(correct/incorrect) and number of points won/lost.
[0225] Optionally and additionally or alternatively, continuous
feedback on game status is provided, in which at any given time
point, participants could see on screen their current number of
points and the unused clues.
[0226] In stage 2, optionally, once trainees complete all the
levels of a game world, they are presented with elaborated
formative feedback. The feedback includes: [0227] Performance
feedback (based on individual performance during that world) [0228]
Goal-directed feedback (including tips for improvement, as well as
a reference between individual performance to the high-level
training objectives of the specific world and their expression in
real-life language processing
[0229] For example, if the user is only able to solve half of the
stages in a given world practicing use of the context, the feedback
might be--"you have completed the 10th world of your training
program, but you only found half of the solution words in this
world. This world practiced skills of utilizing contextual
information to solve the task--we use contextual information in
every conversation to help us disambiguate concepts and form
expectations on the new information that is about to be introduced.
In the future, if you cannot find the solution word, try going back
to the clues you have opened and see how they can be used as
context to understanding each other".
[0230] In stage 3, optionally end of session feedback is provided.
As noted above, each session comprises several levels or worlds;
for the latter designation, each world may optionally comprise
several levels. At the end of each session, optionally more goal
oriented feedback is presented at the end of each session,
reviewing the high-level training objectives covered during the
session and feedback on number of points accumulated during the
session.
[0231] For example, the feedback may state "the training session
today included ever-more complicated clues, and the challenges are
just piling up as you progress the training program. As clues'
complexity increases, you practice new strategies to connect
concepts, and practice the strategies that work for you in
different settings. Continuing this practice will ensure that you
can utilized this strategies in the right way in daily life! Take a
couple of days of rest before tackling the next training session.
Good luck!"
[0232] Optionally for any of the above stages, social feedback may
be included to invoke motivation by cultivating a notion of
competition. This may include information on performance of a
single trainee in comparison to a tailored reference group (matched
by age/baseline/existing social network etc.), but would focus on
the individual progress and not absolute performance. It might be
delivered in/out the application (perhaps interfacing with social
media website such as Facebook; or on a leader board presented in a
public location with social relevance).
[0233] FIG. 6B relates to a method for guided exercises, for
example for maintenance sessions. Following the initial training
(stage 1), different applications of the training method may
include varying number of training sessions (each including a
varying number of stages), and varied training schedules (including
number of stages per session, and time between sessions). In
addition, the programs may include core-sessions (performed in a
given schedules), and a set of maintenance-sessions.
[0234] On stage 2, the guided exercise program is determined by the
game manager or manually. Alternatively, it could be pre-set. The
program includes maintenance sessions and may vary in number of
sessions and their length, as well as time between sessions. The
program might be determined by (1) a default in the specific
application; (2) system recommendation based on the individual
performance and prior training schedule; (3) post-training
diagnostic test that will determine trainee level (compared to a
pre-test baseline diagnostic test); (4) any combination of all the
above.
[0235] Sessions become available to the users based on the
definition of the guided exercise program (determined in stage 2).
As soon as enough time has elapsed after the performance of the
previous session performed on stage 1, or alternatively immediately
if a specific schedule was not assigned, a guided session is
unlocked and becomes available (stage 3).
[0236] In stage 4, the user performs this session once it is
unlocked. The session is based on the above described methods of
FIGS. 4 and/or 5.
[0237] Additional motivational elements may be introduced to
incentivize participation and to encourage the desired game
behaviors (considering the regular feedback delivery and reward
system may not be sufficient in a lower frequency/more standalone
type of use), as shown in stage 5.
[0238] Optionally, after performing a session, an inter-session
break is initiated (stage 6). The break ensures that the user is
not ahead of the schedule defined in stage 2.
[0239] Optionally, stages 3-6 are performed more than once, as
defined by the program assigned in stage 2. Moreover, stage 2 may
also reoccur if needed, and adapt the program as needed.
[0240] FIGS. 7A-C show exemplary non-limiting illustrative
screenshots according to various embodiments of the present
invention when implemented as a game, in which the user enters the
word or words that are the solution to the linguistic task in the
space provided.
[0241] FIG. 8 relates to an illustrative, exemplary, non-limiting
method for handling abnormal semantic abilities according to at
least some embodiments of the present invention, for example
optionally with a speech therapist.
[0242] The method may optionally be very similar to that of FIGS. 4
and 5; however, optionally and preferably the below stages are
interleaved with the methods of these figures.
[0243] The training program may be efficiently implemented in
various clinical adult populations with either developmental or
acquired language disabilities, such as language and learning
disabilities or aphasia. It can be used as part of a clinical
language therapy program to enhance multifarious language
abilities, and can be easily adapted to meet the individual needs
of each client. This can be achieved either during a therapy
session or in between therapy sessions. In the first case, the
language therapist will directly support the training process. In
the latter, the speech therapy session will tap skills that the
client will later practice in the comfort of his own home. In both
cases, the software will enable the therapist to track the clients'
achievements and difficulties thus allowing for refinement of the
language treatment plan.
[0244] Optionally and preferably, in stage 1, the adaptation of the
training program for therapeutic context includes provision of a
dashboard for the therapist, which would allow him/her to monitor
trainee's progress, and customize the training program to the
unique needs of each client. The customization is based on system
recommendations (based on data that will be entered on performance
in external linguistic assessments, as well as data on training
performance drawn from the training program itself). In addition,
the therapist could set the number of sessions and each session
length (based on preset ranges), place higher emphasis on training
specific sub-skills, determine whether sessions will be performed
alone or with a facilitator (the therapist or other care
providers/peers), and the initial difficulty level of the program.
The interface will enable customized alerts on client's performance
and progress (e.g., `client XX did not complete all sessions this
week`, `client solved 20% of the stages--the program might be too
hard!`).
[0245] In addition, in stage 2, the program is linked to the state
of the art diagnostic batteries assessing the relevant symptoms, in
a way that permits the following stages to be performed: stage
3--determine the baseline level of each participant; stage 4--adapt
the difficulty level for each type of world accordingly; stage
5--create a tailored training program that will include an
optimized mix of worlds according to the baseline and treatment
length; stage 6--evaluate the training-driven relief in the
symptoms during and after the training; and stage 7--establish
recommendations for follow up/maintenance sessions.
Examples
[0246] The below Examples relate to different experiments performed
in the context of testing various embodiments of the present
invention. This study explored the effect of a novel theory-based
intervention intended to enhance semantic skills. A cognitive
training program was developed based on theories and empirical
findings which describe the role of the right hemisphere (RH) in
semantic processing. The importance of RH linguistic processes to
daily communication has been emphasized in recent neurolinguistic
research, allowing to create a selective intervention to stimulate
and enhance these processes in a way that will affect real life
performance. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the training
and its selective effect on semantic performance (as opposed to
general verbal and non-verbal skills), an experiment with an active
control group was conducted. Fifteen participants used the
computerized training program for five weeks and 15 participants
trained on a non-semantic control program using the same game-like
platform, stimuli and feedback.
[0247] In a semantic-relatedness judgment task, administrated
before and after the training, significant post-training
enhancement was observed among the training participants, compared
to the control group. This enhancement was predicted by shifts in
laterality indices along the training, so that participants with
increasing RH (right hemisphere) bias showed more improvement on
the semantic task. Moreover, the training group did not show any
significant enhancement in any of the verbal and non-verbal control
tasks--implying that the training effect was selective to semantic
processing.
[0248] These findings provide preliminary evidence for transfer of
the coarse semantic training. They are discussed from an applied
perspective, with the conclusion that applying current knowledge on
semantic processes successfully resulted in a non-invasive
enhancement of semantic abilities, which may be used to affect
semantic processing in daily life; and from a theoretical
perspective, describing the contribution of this study to the body
of knowledge on RH involvement in semantic processing.
1. Methods
1.1. Participants
[0249] Thirty volunteers participated in the study (14 males, ages:
20-29, mean age: 23.47). All participants were right handed, as
assessed by the Edinburgh handedness inventory (Oldfield, 1971).
All participants were monolingual, native Hebrew speakers, and were
never diagnosed with learning disabilities or attention deficits.
Participants were pseudo-randomly assigned to the training and
control groups (15 participants in each group--seven males and
eight females), and were blind to the experimental condition.
Participants received 420 NIS (equivalent to 110$) for their
participation.
1.2. Design
[0250] A pretest-posttest with active control group design was used
(Campbell & Stanley, 1963). This design has numerous strengths
in reducing internal validity threats, to which cognitive training
studies are usually susceptible (Shipstead, Redick, & Engle,
2010).
1.3. Materials
1.3.1. Training Program
[0251] A computer assisted coarse semantic training program and an
equivalent non-semantic control training program were developed.
Following other successful training programs, the training program
comprised 10 sessions (Gopher et al., 1994; Willis et al., 2006).
On each level, participants had to find a single solution word,
based on the 3-7 clues available on the screen, and level-specific
instructions. Each program included 67 levels, composed from a pool
of 396 clues. Training duration was not fixed, so that each
training session included a pre-determined number of levels
(intended to induce at least 30 minutes of training per session),
and the session ended once the participant completed all
levels.
1.3.1.1. The Basic Task
[0252] In the semantic training program, the basic task was
designed following the three semantic processes that were described
by the BAIS model (Jung-Beeman, 2005). On each level, participants
were provided with different clues which were intended to activate
different concepts in their minds. The participants had to open the
clues one by one, in search of a single solution word that connects
all the clues. To reach the solutions, participants had to
integrate the activated concepts and select one outcome as the
solution. For example, during a certain level, the participants can
be presented with the four clues appearing in
[0253] (shown in FIG. 9). The solution word for this level is
"day", a single concept that all clues are remotely connected to
(as detailed in Table 1). In the control program, the basic task
did not involve any semantic activation, integration or selection.
As in the training program, participants were instructed to use the
clues on each level to find a single solution word. However, the
integration of clues that was required in order to find the
solution was based on non-semantic abilities, such as counting
elements in the clues, scanning the clues for rhymes and categories
(i.e., colors, numbers, action words, etc.) or for inflections of a
specific word (i.e., smile, smiling), etc.
[0254] In the semantic training program, a tailored reward scheme
was used in order to encourage participants to perform the basic
training task thoroughly, i.e., activating and integrating distant
meanings and selecting only the appropriate directions. The reward
scheme was composed of three elements: (1) Level Scoring: the
participants were most rewarded for using as few clues as possible,
in order to challenge the integration of weakly related clues; for
viewing each clue only once, in order to challenge meaning
retention; and for reaching the solution on the first guess, in
order to challenge selection. (2) Bonus Levels: At the end of each
session, participants encountered a bonus level with six clues from
previous levels, which served as recall cues. Participants received
points for each solution they recalled in response to one of the
clues. Vast literature on memory shows that performance in cued
recall tasks is affected by the processing level of the target
items--optimal performance in this task is achieved when deep
semantic processing of the targets is performed (e.g., Craik &
Lockhart, 1972; for review see Brown & Mitchell, 1994). This
task served as an additional incentive for participants to deepen
the processing of clues. (3) Extreme Levels: After concluding the
post-training assessment, participants were presented with two
difficult levels. The task and clues followed the usual training
protocol; however the difficulty level was elevated by presenting
elements from different game worlds, hence integrating different
trained skills. Participants were informed at the beginning of the
study that they will be rewarded up to 100 NIS (about 25$) for
solving these levels, and were told that following the instructions
and training protocol will increase their chances to complete the
bonus levels.
[0255] In the control program, the rewarding scheme was altered, so
that (1) level scoring encouraged participants to use all clues and
emphasized the penalty on wrong solutions; (2) bonus levels at the
end of the session included previously unseen trivia questions
instead of clues (in order to avoid memorizing the relations
between clues and solutions). Nevertheless, extreme levels were
described and presented to both groups in a similar fashion, in
order to encourage both groups to follow the protocols equally.
1.3.1.2. The Linguistic Stimuli
[0256] The pool of clues served as the linguistic stimuli, and it
was used for both programs. In the semantic training program, the
stimuli were manipulated so that they will trigger coarse coding by
incorporating semantic tasks related to RH semantic processing.
Most clues required the activation of distant related meanings
(Jung-Beeman, 2005), or unusual interpretations (Abdullaev &
Posner, 1997; Seger et al., 2000). With some clues, participants
were requested to read passages with no titles--a task shown to
elevate RH activity in an imaging study (St George et al., 1999).
Other clues included tasks such as completing an endless
sentence--based on increased involvement of the RH in finding
optimal sentence endings (Kircher et al., 2001); selecting an
appropriate ending for an endless joke (Coulson & Wu, 2005;
Marinkovic et al., 2011); associating an idiom to an image related
to its literal meaning (Mashal, Faust, Hendler, & Jung-Beeman,
2008); finding associations that connect two indirectly related
words (Kiefer et al., 1998; Sass et al., 2009); or answering
comprehension questions regarding excerpts that imply causal
inferences (Virtue et al., 2008). In order to create a rich
training environment (Gopher, 2007), the stimuli varied across
different loads (from a single word to 2-3 paragraphs), modalities
(written text, spoken text, songs, images and sounds) and task
difficulty.
[0257] In addition to the clues, which were related to the solution
word on each level, participants were also presented with 1-4
surprises on each level. About 40% of the surprises were linguistic
stimuli which were manipulated just like the clues, and 60% simply
awarded the participant with bonus points. The surprises were
incorporated in the training program in order to increase the
exposure to the linguistic stimuli and to the integrated coarse
semantic tasks without loading the game levels with additional
clues. Opening surprises was always rewarded with points, which
served as an incentive to approach them.
[0258] The linguistic stimuli used in the non-semantic control
program were slightly adjusted in order to avoid the triggering of
coarse semantic processing. For instance, no words were missing in
the sentences, texts were provided with titles, and no instruction
prompted activation of related meanings. The surprises were
replaced with multiple choice trivia questions (while maintaining
the 40:60 proportions of the linguistic stimuli and bonuses).
1.3.1.3. The Training Program
[0259] For the coarse semantic training program, 10 types of game
worlds were used, each placing an emphasis on a certain
subcomponent or a specific set of demands that were identified in
the neuro-cognitive literature as integral to coarse semantic
processing. Examples include distant meaning retention (e.g.,
Burgess & Simpson, 1988), suppression of distracting meanings
(e.g., Tompkins, Baumgaertner, Blake, & Fassbinder, 2000),
activating literal and figurative non-salient meanings (e.g., Giora
& Stringaris, 2009), and the integration of previous context in
order to elicit more meanings (Federmeier, 2007). Moreover, in
order to induce variability and allow trainees to explore the
trained skill under different demands (Gopher, 2007), additional
variables were manipulated between game worlds: time for processing
a clue, mental load (clue complexity and length) and the number of
clues available.
[0260] The different subcomponents were emphasized in each
game-world by introducing different instructions, exposing
participants to different sets of stimuli and modifying the reward
scheme. For instance, in worlds which emphasized different meaning
types, some clues were related to the solution through their
figurative meaning and some through their literal meaning, and the
surprises included tasks such as associating an idiom with an image
that was related to its literal meaning. In worlds which
manipulated mental load, the number of clues and surprises was
higher, and many clues included long excerpts. In worlds which
emphasized meaning retention, the cost of re-opening a clue was
higher, and so was the penalty for wrong guesses.
[0261] Each world included up to four levels. Easier levels were
placed in the beginning of each session or following a sequence of
more difficult levels. The worlds were introduced gradually by
their difficulty level, with repetition between the sessions. The
first seven sessions included two worlds, typically--one
reoccurring type and a new one. The last three sessions contained
3-5 worlds each with fewer levels on each world, so that more world
types reoccurred on each session and the emphasis on change was
more frequent. All in all, the training program became more
difficult as it progressed due to the integration of more difficult
worlds, more difficult levels, and more frequent changes between
worlds towards the end of the program. Game-level difficulty was
manipulated by a combination of factors, including the number of
clues (assuming that more clues induce a higher load), the salience
of the embedded element in the clue which related it to the
solution (assuming that addressing the non-salient elements in the
clues is more demanding), and the remoteness of the association
between the clue and the solution.
[0262] The control program did not employ the emphasis change
protocol. Thus, the game worlds did not differ by an emphasized
subcomponent. Nonetheless, the program's superficial structure was
identical to that of the training group--including the number of
levels in each world and number of worlds per session. As in the
training program, easier levels were incorporated at the beginning
of each session or following a sequence of more difficult levels,
and task difficulty rose as the program progressed.
1.3.1.4. Feedback Content and Schedule
[0263] Given that previous research has shown that in the context
of cognitive training, intermittent feedback enhances transfer
(Gopher, 2007; Schmidt & Bjork, 1992), and formative feedback
is superior to basic Knowledge of Results (KR) feedback (Shute,
2008), intermittent formative feedback was integrated at the end of
each world and session. The feedback provided participants with
elaborate Knowledge of Results (KR) which related their performance
to the high-level training objectives of the specific world and
their expression in real-life language processing and suggested
tips for improvement. Additional simplified KR feedback was
provided immediately following any input from the participant. The
feedback schedule was identical in both programs, and the
performance in both programs was related to the same high-level
training goals. Minimal adjustments were made in the control
program feedback content in order to maintain coherence with the
content of the specific levels. As a result, the feedback which was
provided to the control group was less specific.
1.3.1.5. Pretests
[0264] During the development of the training and control programs,
formative evaluations were performed by observing individuals from
the target population performing early versions of the program in
lab settings. Based on these observations, the instructions, reward
schemes, level difficulty, program structure and content on
specific clues and levels were adjusted. These observations assured
that trainees who used the training version utilized the expected
thinking processes in general and as a response to the different
emphases in particular, and that trainees in the control version
did not use similar semantic operations to solve the different
levels.
1.3.2. Pretest-Posttest Battery
1.3.2.1. Semantic Task: Relatedness Judgments Following Ambiguous
Prime Words
[0265] Reason for Inclusion in the Battery.
[0266] In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the semantic
training and its selectivity in RH semantic processes, the first
task in the battery was a semantic task that probes RH and LH
semantic processing. Previous studies which utilized judgments on
ambiguous words have demonstrated that the semantic activation of
meanings related to ambiguous words is lateralized according to
meaning saliency (Burgess & Simpson, 1988; Peleg & Eviatar,
2008, 2009, 2012). In line with the prediction of the BAIS model
(Jung-Beeman, 2005), these studies show that responses to words
that are related to the subordinate meaning of an ambiguous word
(`BANK`--riverside), presented at least 250-750 ms after the
ambiguous word, are considered to reflect coarse semantic
processing in the RH, while responses to the dominant or salient
meaning (`BANK`--financial institution) reflect LH semantic
processing. Most importantly, this task was also used before in
Hebrew in order to examine changes in RH and LH related semantic
performance separately, following brain stimulation (Harpaz,
Levkovitz, & Lavidor, 2009; Peretz & Lavidor, in
press).
[0267] Stimuli.
[0268] The stimulus pool consisted of 160 Hebrew ambiguous words
which served as primes (i.e. LEVANA, in Hebrew: white/moon). The
target words, ranging between 2-7 letters, were either related to
the prime word's dominant meaning (i.e., "red", related to the
dominant meaning "white"), to its subordinate meaning (i.e.,
"night", related to the subordinate meaning "moon"), or completely
non-related (i.e., "shower"). The semantic relations have been
validated in previous studies (Faust & Kahana, 2002; Harpaz,
Levkovitz, & Lavidor, 2009; Peleg & Eviatar, 2008). Two
equivalent stimuli lists were created, each including 80 ambiguous
words. No words were repeated as prime/target words on the same
list.
[0269] Design.
[0270] The semantic task comprised three conditions which was
characterized by the type of relation between the prime and target
words (dominant/subordinate/unrelated). The subordinate relation
type condition was therefore used as the critical condition for the
evaluation of the semantic processing that is related to the right
hemisphere.
[0271] The stimuli were pre-allocated randomly to the different
conditions, so that in each list 20 words were allocated to the
dominant condition, 20 to the subordinate condition, and 40 to
unrelated condition. Length and frequency of each type of word
(prime and target) were matched between conditions.
[0272] Following previous studies which employed the same stimuli
(Harpaz et al., 2009), a block design was used based on relation
type. One block contained all the dominant-related trails and one
block contained all the subordinate-related trials. Each block
included an equal number of related and unrelated trials.
[0273] Procedure.
[0274] The participants were comfortably seated in a quiet room,
with a chin rest fixating their gaze at a distance of 57 cm from
the screen. The screen sampling rate was 60 Hz. The stimulus
display was controlled by an E-prime 1.1 software (Psychology
Software Tools, Inc., PA, US).
[0275] The participants were presented with short instructions on
the screen, followed by eight practice trials in which they
received feedback for their responses. In the first four practice
trials, participants were required to perform a relatedness
judgment for unambiguous words. Following an additional explanation
of the concept of ambiguous words, four more practice trials were
performed--this time with ambiguous words as primes. Following a
short debriefing, the experiment began.
[0276] The experiment included two blocks which presented in random
order, with a 30 second intermission between blocks. Each block
contained 20 related and 20 unrelated trials, presented in random
order.
[0277] Each trial began with a central fixation cross, which was
presented for 500 ms, followed by the prime word, which was
presented in the center of the screen for 180 ms. A fixation cross
re-appeared for an additional 500 ms, followed by the presentation
of the target word in the center of the screen for 180 ms. Then,
participants were instructed to indicate whether the target word
was related to the prime word or not. The participants responded by
pressing one of two keys with the right index or middle
fingers.
[0278] Measurement.
[0279] Performance in each condition was measured by response time
(RT) for correct answers, as well as accuracy rate (ACC). An
integrated performance measurement was created by dividing the RT
by ACC, so that lower scores reflected better performance.
1.3.2.2. Verbal Memory Test: A Subset of the Rey Auditory Verbal
Learning Test (AVLT)
[0280] Reason for Inclusion in the Battery.
[0281] We suspected that the requirement to integrate verbal
information from different clues, which is presented in both
training programs, would elicit some memory enhancement. Hence, we
aimed to include a verbal memory test in the test-retest battery,
in order to examine whether memory was enhanced following the
training, and whether that enhancement mediates semantic
training-induced effects.
[0282] We selected the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT,
Rey, 1941, 1964) in order to measure different aspects of verbal
learning and memory (Vakil & Blachstein, 1993). A Hebrew
version of this test is widely used for academic and clinical
purposes, and detailed norms are available (Vakil & Blachstein,
1997). The structure analysis performed using the Hebrew version
indicates that the test scores reflect more than one verbal memory
domain and provide valid measurement for processes that are related
to acquisition, retention and retrieval (Vakil & Blachstein,
1993). Notably, the English version of this test was reliably used
before in a test-retest design and showed good reliability when
using equivalent versions (Geffen, 1994).
[0283] Stimuli.
[0284] Stimuli were taken from the Hebrew version of the Rey AVLT
(Vakil & Blachstein, 1993). The test includes two lists of 15
common nouns. These lists were used as two equivalent versions of
the verbal memory task.
[0285] Procedure.
[0286] The procedure followed the standardized administration of
the 1-5 Rey AVLT trials, as described by Lezak (1983). The
participant was sitting in front of the experimenter, and the test
was administrated orally. The list of words was read to the
participants at a rate of one word per second, five consecutive
times. Each reading was followed by a free recall task, in which
participants were requested to repeat all the words they could
remember, regardless of the order in which they were read.
[0287] Measurement.
[0288] Following Vakil & Blachstein (1993), four measurements
were derived from the test. They reflect different factors which
are associated with memory processes: immediate memory (trial 1
score), reflecting the initial recall and related to acquisition
processes; best learning (trial 5 score), reflecting the recall on
the final trial and related to the retention and retrieval
processes; learning rate (trial 5 score minus trial 1 score),
reflecting the learning ability of the participant while placing
less emphasis on the initial recall, with relation to the
acquisition processes; and total learning (sum of scores on all 5
trials), reflecting the capacity to recall and accumulate words
across learning trials, with relation to the retention process.
1.3.2.3. Lexical Task: Lexical Decision
[0289] Reason for Inclusion in the Battery.
[0290] The aim of the training program is to improve coarse
semantic processing. However, it is possible that due to the
engagement with verbal stimuli, the enhancement induced by training
will not be limited to semantic processes--it may enhance verbal
abilities in general, or at least, RH verbal abilities that are not
semantic per se. Moreover, it could be argued that the effects
which are observed following the training in the semantic task are
merely an artifact of enhancement in low-level linguistic
abilities. Therefore, we intended to test the selectivity of the
training by probing non-semantic low-level linguistic processing in
general, and in the RH in particular. It has been established that
lexical access to familiar written words occurs before the semantic
system is activated, as agreed by numerous well-accepted models of
word reading (for review, see Coltheart, 2006). Thus, it was
decided to probe the lexical aspects of word recognition by using a
lexical decision task, a common task used to investigate visual
word recognition and to probe lexical access (e.g., Balota &
Chumbley, 1984; Hudson & Bergman, 1985).
[0291] Stimuli.
[0292] The stimulus pool consisted of 120 five-letter Hebrew words,
and 120 five-letter non-word strings. Two equivalent stimuli lists
were created, each including 60 words and 60 non-words. Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) revealed no difference between lists in word
frequency (F<1).
[0293] Design.
[0294] The lexical task comprised six conditions (2.times.3): word
type (word/non-word).times.presentation (central visual field
(CVF)/right visual field (RVF)/left visual field (LVF)). Brief
lateralized presentation of words to the left or right visual
fields allows us to probe the processing of these stimuli in the
contra-lateral hemisphere, a common technique often referred to as
the divided visual field (DVF) paradigm (Bourne, 2006). Thus, a
presentation of words to the LVF was used as the critical condition
for non-semantic verbal processing in the RH, while the
presentation of words across all three presentation conditions was
used as a general test for non-semantic verbal processing. For each
participant, the stimuli were randomized across the presentation
conditions.
[0295] Procedure.
[0296] As in the semantic task, participants were seated at a fixed
distance of 57 cm from the screen. The stimulus display was
controlled by an E-prime 1.1 software (Psychology Software Tools,
Inc., PA, US). The participants were presented with short
instructions on screen, followed by six practice trials--one of
each condition, presented in random order. Following each practice
trial, accuracy feedback was provided. Following a short
debriefing, the experiment began.
[0297] The experiment included 120 trials which were presented in
random order, with a 30 second intermission after the first 60
trials. On each trial, one of three presentation conditions was
assigned randomly. In the CVF condition, words were presented in
the center of the screen; in the lateralized conditions words were
presented 2.57.degree. from the center of the screen (so that the
near edge of the word was 2.55 cm from the center).
[0298] Each trial began with a central fixation cross, presented
for 1000 ms, followed by the stimuli, presented in the RVF/CVF/LVF
for 180 ms. Then, participants were instructed to indicate whether
the string presented was a Hebrew word or not. The response was
made by pressing one of two keys with the right index or middle
fingers. Response time limit was 1700 ms.
[0299] Measurement.
[0300] As in the semantic task, an integrated performance
measurement was calculated for each condition by dividing RT (for
correct answers only) by ACC. Lower scores reflected better
performance.
1.3.2.4. Non-Verbal Task: Lateralized Coherent Motion Detection
(CMD)
[0301] Reason for Inclusion in the Battery.
[0302] The final task on the test-retest battery was dedicated to
evaluating change in non-verbal processing in the right and left
hemispheres. This was done in order to assure that enhancement in
RH processes that were induced by the training is not general, but
rather selective to semantic processing. Therefore, we utilized a
lateralized version of Coherent Motion Detection (CMD), a
well-established task that is used for the probing of the visual
system, and the magnocellular system in particular. In this task,
participants are exposed to arrays of moving dots, where some of
the dots are moving coherently to the same direction, and other
dots move at random. The participant's ability to recognize the
coherent motion when only small portions of the dots are moving
coherently reflects the proficiency of the magnocellular visual
system.
[0303] Stimuli.
[0304] Stimuli, design and procedure followed Levi, Walsh &
Lavidor (2010). The stimulus consisted of two
random-dot-kinematograms which contain 300 dots each. The grey dots
appeared over a brighter grey background (brightness ratio
dots/background=0.57) and were 0.14 cm in size. The two arrays were
presented simultaneously one beside the other, so that each array
was perceived by one visual field. Coherent motion was created as
the movement of a certain percentage of dots in a single, randomly
chosen direction. The rest of the dots, as well as the dots in the
other array, moved in random directions. Apparent velocity was
approximately 1 degree per second.
[0305] Design.
[0306] The non-verbal task comprised three conditions that were
characterized by the appearance of coherent motion in either of the
arrays (right (RVF)/left (LVF)/none (No-coherence)). The RVF and
LVF presentation conditions were used to probe non-verbal
processing, whereas the LVF condition probed for non-verbal
processes in the RH in particular. The no-coherence condition was
introduced in order to prevent a possible strategy of looking
constantly at one of the arrays. RVF and LVF conditions appeared in
equal proportion of the trials (40% each), while the no-coherence
condition appeared on only 20% of the trials.
[0307] Procedure.
[0308] As in the semantic and lexical tasks, participants were
seated at a fixed distance of 57 cm from the screen. Thus, each
array of dots occupied 9.2.degree..times.13.5.degree. of a visual
angle, and dot size was about 1.5.degree.. The arrays were
presented at a distance of 4.9 cm, with a fixation cross between
them in the center of the screen, so that each array appeared
2.5.degree. to the right or the left of fixation. The stimulus
display was controlled by MATLAB 7.0 software.
[0309] The participants were presented with short instructions on
screen, followed by 20 practice trials that were identical to the
experimental trials and did not include any feedback. Each trial
began with a central fixation cross, which was presented for 500
ms, and followed by a 500 ms motion period. On each trial, coherent
motion could appear in one of the arrays, while random motion
appeared in the other one (in the no-coherence condition, random
motion appeared in both arrays). Participants were instructed to
indicate whether coherent motion appeared in the right array, the
left array, or in none of the arrays. They responded by pressing
one of three keys with the right index finger, with no time
limit.
[0310] The degree of motion coherence was manipulated by changing
the percentage of the dots that move in the same direction. The
manipulation was done for each condition separately, based on each
participant's individual performance in the previous trials in that
condition. In the first trial of the practice and the experiment,
the degree was 63%. A 3-down 1-up staircase procedure was used, so
that the percentage decreased by 3% after three consecutive correct
responses, and increased by 3% after an incorrect one.
[0311] To gather the minimal amount of data that is required for
the calculation of a reliable performance measure, the experiment
length was also determined by performance. Unless a maximal limit
of 400 trials was exceeded, the experiment ended after at least 15
reversals in each condition. Reversals were defined as a change in
the coherence trend, i.e. a decrease in the degree of coherence
after a period of increases or vice versa.
[0312] Measurement.
[0313] The performance measure was the coherency threshold which
was calculated separately for each condition as the average of
coherence values over 12 reversals. As the number of reversals
varied between conditions and participants, only the values of
coherency at the last 12 reversals in each visual field were
included in the threshold calculation. Lower coherency thresholds
indicate better performance.
1.3.3. Additional Measurements
[0314] In order to characterize the training effects, prior
motivational, scholastic and verbal abilities were evaluated.
Additionally, in order to gain an additional perspective on
training induced plasticity, behavioral laterality indices were
measured throughout the training
1.3.3.1. Trait Motivation: BIS/BAS Scales
[0315] Trait motivation was assessed by using a Hebrew online
version of the BIS/BAS scales (Carver & White, 1994). The
questionnaire comprises 24 items (four fillers). All items were
judged on a four-point scale, ranging from 1 (`I strongly agree`)
to 4 (`I strongly disagree`). The BIS/BAS scales assess a
behavioral inhibition measure (BIS; calculated as the sum of the
scores of seven items, i.e., "I worry about making mistakes") and
three behavioral approach measure (BAS) subscales: BAS Reward
Responsiveness (BAS-RR, which measures positive anticipation of
rewarding events, i.e., "When I see an opportunity for something I
like I get excited right away"), BAS Drive (BAS-D, which measures
rewards pursuit, i.e., "I go out of my way to get the things I
want") and BAS Fun Seeking (BAS-F, which measures the search for
new rewarding situations, i.e., "I'm always willing to try
something new if I think it will be fun"). The BAS scale is
calculated as the sum of scores in the 13 items which compose these
subscales.
1.3.3.2. Prior Verbal and Scholastic Abilities: Psychometric
Entrance Test (PET) Total and Verbal Scores
[0316] The PET is a scholastic aptitude test which is constructed
and administrated by the Israeli National Institute for Testing and
Evaluation (Beller, 1995). The test is intended to estimate future
success in academic studies, and is considered highly reliable. For
many years, it has been a mandatory part of the university
admission process in Israel (Beller, 1994). The total score is a
normalized weighted average of three multiple choice subtests:
verbal reasoning (40%), quantitative reasoning (40%) and English as
a foreign language (20%). In particular, the verbal reasoning
subset comprises 60 items of different types and is focused on the
ability to analyze and understand complex written material, the
ability to think systematically and logically, and the ability to
perceive fine distinctions in meaning among words and concepts
(Beller, 1994, p. 13).
[0317] Participants were requested to share their total and verbal
scores. Sharing these scores was not communicated as a prerequisite
for participation.
1.3.3.3. Laterality Index: Line Bisection
[0318] Line bisection is a behavioral assessment method for
laterality which was initially designed to identify unilateral
neglect (for review, see Jewell & McCourt, 2000). Recently, it
has been confirmed as a valid measure for prefrontal asymmetry
(Nash et al., 2010).
[0319] On each trial, participants were instructed to mark the
exact center of a 170 mm horizontal black line, using a fine-point
pen. Each line was printed in the center of a blank A5 landscape
paper. The papers were bound in 80 pages booklets. On each
measurement, participants performed three trials of this task.
Participants were instructed to perform a 3 trial measurement
before and after each training session. At those times, the
training program prompted a reminder for the line bisection task,
referred the participant to a specific page in the booklet, and
indicated a unique eight character code the participant had to
write on that page, for retrospective verification purposes.
[0320] Scores reflected the average percent of deviation from the
midpoint of the line, so that positive scores reflected a bias to
the right side and to the contra-lateral left hemisphere (LH bias)
and negative scores reflected a bias to the left side (RH
bias).
1.4. General Procedure
[0321] Volunteers filled in online demographic and personal
information questionnaires, as well as the Edinburgh handedness
inventory (Oldfield, 1971). Participants who matched the
participation criteria additionally completed the BIS/BAS scale
(Carver & White, 1994) and reported their PET total and verbal
scores (Beller, 1994, 1995). Then, the participants were
pseudo-randomly assigned to the training and control groups.
[0322] Subsequently, each participant arrived at the lab for the
pre-training assessment session. After signing the consent form,
participants completed the four tasks that were included in the
test-retest battery (semantic task, memory test, lexical task and
CMD task). The order of the non-semantic tasks was counterbalanced
across participants. The order of the test versions was also
counterbalanced. The evaluation lasted for 40-60 minutes, and was
followed by an introduction to the training program.
[0323] During the training introduction, the participants launched
the training program, followed the instructions and completed three
levels. In the beginning, they were prompted to perform the line
bisection task. The experimenter facilitated the session and
emphasized the guidelines that are related to the game rules, the
training protocol and schedule, the reward scheme and the line
bisection task. Participants received a game CD and installation
instructions, and were instructed to install the program and begin
the training at home 2-5 days following the lab session.
[0324] Participants performed 10 training sessions at home, and
were instructed to perform the training in a quiet room with no
observers. The participants completed two sessions per week, and
had a weekly conversation with the experimenter for questions and
feedbacks. 2-5 days after the last training session, each
participant arrived at the lab to complete the post-training
assessment session. The session procedure was identical to that of
the first session. Following the evaluation, the participants
completed two `extreme levels`, and were rewarded with an extra 50
NIS for each level they solved. It is important to note that
throughout the study, the procedure was identical for participants
in both groups.
2. Results
[0325] All 30 participants completed the intervention and
assessments according to schedule, without any compliance issues or
dropouts. Analyzing performance logs during the experiment, the
experimenters noticed no transgressions in the performance, and
made sure that all participants progressed as expected in the
program. Thus, data from all 30 participants was included in the
analyses.
[0326] To ensure that the groups did not differ in relevant
a-priori characteristics, a series of t-tests for independent
samples was conducted. As detailed in Table 2 (FIG. 10), the
analyses did not reveal any significant differences between the
groups in the various demographic, motivational and cognitive
measures that were assessed prior to their participation.
[0327] To make sure that the groups' performance before training
did not differ, another series of t-tests for independent samples
was conducted. As detailed in Table 3 (FIG. 11), prior to the
training, no significant differences were found between groups in
any of the tests.
[0328] As no significant differences were found on the pre-training
assessment, we used a unified measure for all tests. This measure
represents the change between pre and post-training assessments. To
account for prior individual differences among the participants,
the change measures were weighted against each participant's
baseline performance. The individual performance change measures
were calculated by subtracting the pre-training performance from
the post-training performance, and dividing that by the
pre-training performance (multiplied by 100, to create a
percentage). For the semantic, lexical and non-verbal tests, where
improvement reflected as lower scores post-training, change was
calculated by subtracting the post-training from the pre-training
threshold, and dividing that by the pre-training threshold
(multiplied by 100). Thus, for all tests, higher scores reflected a
larger individual training gain.
[0329] To test the effectiveness of the semantic training,
performance change in the semantic task was analyzed by a
mixed-design ANOVA with the group as the subject factor, relation
type (dominant/subordinate/unrelated) as the within-subject factor,
and individual change in integrated performance (RT/ACC) as the
dependent measure. As illustrated in FIG. 12, while no main effects
for the group or relation type were found, the analysis did reveal
a significant interaction between group and type, F(2, 56)=4.13,
p=0.021, .eta..sup.2=0.13. In accordance with our hypothesis, a
series of independent sample t-tests using Bonferroni correction
for multiple comparisons showed that the interaction source was a
difference between groups in the subordinate relation type
condition, t(28)=2.47, p=0.020, so the training group showed
training gain (M=16.88, SD=20.88) while the control group did not
(M=-2.53, SD=22.22). No significant differences between the groups
were found for the other relation types (dominant: t(28)=1.91,
p=0.066; unrelated: t(28)=-0.87, p=0.390). This trend is also
reflected by examining the raw pre and post-training scores by
group (Table 4--see FIG. 13). Hence, training induced improvement
in judging semantic relatedness of distantly related meanings for
ambiguous words, but not for unrelated meanings.
[0330] Interestingly, in the control group, the insignificant
individual change in the dominant relation condition (M=1.43,
SD=16.80) highly correlated with the insignificant individual
change in the subordinate relation type condition (r=0.76,
p=0.001), which indicates that both related conditions were equally
unaffected by training; while no such correlation was evident for
the training group (r=0.00, p=0.998), where the change in
subordinate condition was significant,--which indicates a different
pattern of change in the RH and LH related processes in this task
following the training.
[0331] FIG. 12 shows means and standard errors (SE) for individual
post-training performance change in the semantic task, by group and
relation type. Pre and Post-training performance was calculated as
RT for correct answers divided by accuracy; change was calculated
as [(pre-training-post-training)/(pre-training)]*100. Error bars
represent standard error of the mean, corrected for individual
subject means (Cousineau, 2005). *p<0.05
[0332] To evaluate the possible positive side-effect of both
programs on memory skills, four mixed-design ANOVA were conducted,
with the group being between subject factor and the time of
measurement (pre/post-training) being within subject measurement.
As detailed in Table 5 (FIG. 14), the analyses revealed significant
improvement over time in three of the scores (immediate memory,
best memory and total memory), while no differences were observed
between the groups in any of the scores (nor were there any
significant group X time interactions). Hence, enhanced performance
in three of the four scores was observed following the training in
both programs, however, no additional enhancement was observed
following the semantic training.
[0333] In order to test the selectiveness of the semantic training,
two more mixed-design ANOVA were conducted on the additional
non-semantic control tasks, much like the semantic task analysis.
Performance change in the lexical task was analyzed by a
mixed-design ANOVA with the group as the between subject factor,
presentation condition (RVF/CVF/LVF) as the within-subject factor,
and individual change in integrated performance (RT/ACC) in
response to words as the dependent measure. As illustrated in FIG.
15, the mixed-design ANOVA revealed no effects for group or
presentation condition (F<1), nor a significant interaction,
F(2, 56)=1.40, p=0.256. The raw pre and post-training scores
(detailed in Table 6, shown in FIG. 16) also do not indicate any
post-training enhancement or group differences. Hence, in
accordance with our hypothesis, the training did not induce
improvement in recognizing words in a non-semantic verbal task, not
even in the LVF condition that targeted the right hemisphere.
[0334] FIG. 15 shows means and SE for individual post-training
performance change on the lexical decision task, by group and
presentation condition. Pre and post-training performance was
calculated as RT for correct answers divided by accuracy; change
was calculated as
[(pre-training-post-training)/(pre-training)]*100. Error bars
represent standard error of the mean, corrected for individual
subject means (Cousineau, 2005).
[0335] Finally, in order to evaluate changes in the non-verbal
task, an additional mixed-design ANOVA was performed, with the
group as the between-subject factor, the visual field (VF: RVF/LVF)
as the within-subject factor, and individual change in coherent
motion detection thresholds as the dependent measure. As
illustrated in FIG. 3, the analysis revealed no group or VF effects
(F<1), and no interaction between the group and VF, F(1,
28)=1.16, p=0.291. The raw pre and post-training scores which are
detailed in Table 7 (FIG. 18) further show that both groups had
similar performance before and after the training, which supports
our conclusion that training did not induce improvement in the
non-verbal task of detecting coherent motion, not even in the LVF
condition that targeted the right hemisphere.
[0336] FIG. 17 shows means and SE for individual post training
change in coherency thresholds on the coherent motion detection
task, by group and visual field condition. Performance change was
calculated as [(pre-training-post-training)/(pre-training)]*100.
Error bars represent standard error of the mean, corrected for
individual subject means (Cousineau, 2005).
[0337] As evident from Table 19, which presents a summary of the
post-training effects in each of the four tests that are included
in the pretest-posttest battery, in line with our predictions, the
only significant difference between the groups was detected in the
semantic task--where post-training enhancement was evident in the
training group only, reaching a significant effect in the
subordinate relation type condition; a marginally significant
effect in the dominant relation type condition; and no effect in
the unrelated condition. In order to characterize this effect and
investigate possible factors which are specifically related to the
training-induced semantic improvement, we performed three series of
regression analyses.
[0338] The first set of analyses was aimed at testing the
hypothesis that the cognitive changes that are evident in the
semantic task were related to brain plasticity as reflected by
individual laterality shifts that were measured along the training
using the line bisection tasks. Individual laterality shifts were
calculated for each participant by subtracting the arcs in the
transformation of his/her average percentage deviation at the end
of the last training session, from his/her arcs in the
transformation of the average percentage deviation at the first
training session. A higher positive laterality shift indicated a
stronger RH bias that was developed along the training, while a
lower negative shift indicated a stronger LH bias. Table 9 (FIG.
20) details the average individual change per group, as well as the
raw deviations before and after the training. While participants in
the control group exhibited a marginally significant LH bias
(t(13)=-2.08, p=0.057), participants in the training group did not
show any significant bias (t(13)=-0.60, p=0.560). However, the high
variation between participants, especially in the training group,
indicates that some individuals may have had a stronger shift than
others.
[0339] Mean individual shifts are calculated by subtracting the
arcsin transformation of each participant's average percentage
deviation at the end of the last training session, from the arcsin
transformation of the average percentage deviation at the first
training session, averaged across participants; Positive shifts
indicate RH bias.
[0340] Therefore, a series of linear regression analyses were
performed in order to predict the individual performance change in
the different conditions of the semantic task by using the
laterality shift as predictor. The analyses were done separately
for the training and control groups. In the training group,
training gain in the subordinate relation type condition was
significantly predicted by the laterality shift, F(1, 12)=8.42,
p=0.013, so that participants who developed stronger RH bias along
the training exhibited greater improvement in identifying words
that were related to the subordinate meanings of the ambiguous
prime word (see FIG. 24a). The laterality shift accounted for 41.2%
of the variability in performance change. As detailed in Table 10
(FIG. 21), no other regression equations were significant,
therefore the laterality shift did not predict a performance change
in either of the conditions in the control group, nor in the other
two relation type conditions in the training group. Hence, the
laterality shift selectively predicted the magnitude of the
training-induced semantic effect.
[0341] A second series of analyses examined whether prior
linguistic abilities predicted the magnitude of the training
induced effect. PET Verbal reasoning score, reflecting prior Hebrew
vocabulary and reasoning abilities, was entered in a linear
regression analysis in order to predict an individual performance
change in the different conditions of the semantic task, for each
group separately. As detailed in Table 11 (FIG. 22), prior
linguistic abilities predicted the training-induced effect only,
that is to say that the only significant regression equation was
found when predicting the individual training gain in the
subordinate relation type in the training group, F(1, 8)=6.84,
p=0.031. Verbal abilities accounted for 46.1% of the variability in
the training induced improvement, so that participants with higher
prior abilities benefited more from the training (see FIG. 24b).
Hence, prior verbal abilities selectively predicted the magnitude
of the training-induced semantic effect.
[0342] The final set of analyses was aimed at testing the effect of
motivational factors on the participants' post-training
improvement, in order to assure that the effect was not due only to
the participants' sensitivity to rewards. To that end, two
regression analyses were performed using the reward sensitivity
score (BAS-RR) of the BIS/BAS scale as a predictor, in order to
predict individual change in identifying words related to the
subordinate meanings of the ambiguous prime word in the semantic
task. As detailed in Table 12 (FIG. 23), while the training group
reward sensitivity did not predict the performance change (F<1),
in the control group reward sensitivity accounted for 36.2% of the
variability in the performance change, F(1, 13)=7.38, p=0.018.
Hence, the reward sensitivity motivational trait predicted the
pretest-posttest improvement only in the control group, but not in
the training group (see FIG. 24c).
[0343] FIG. 24.
[0344] Individual pretest-posttest changes as predicted by (a)
laterality shifts, (b) existing verbal abilities, or (c) reward
responsiveness motivation, in each group. Individual changes were
measured as post training performance change in the subordinate
relation condition of the semantic task, and calculated as
[(pre-training-post-training)/(pre-training)]*100. Laterality
shifts were measured as post training change in the line bisection
task, calculated using arcsin transformation of average percentage
deviation as (end of the last training session-first training
session), and standardized per group. Existing verbal abilities
were measured as verbal PET score, reported by participants prior
to the training, standardized per group. Reward responsiveness
motivation was measured prior to the training as the BAS-RR
subscale of the BIS/BAS scale, and standardized per group (note
that lower scores indicate higher reward sensitivity).
3. Discussion
[0345] The main finding in our study was that the cognitive
training developed, based on state-of-the-art literature on
semantic processing in the right hemisphere, was effective. The
training program resulted in significantly enhanced performance in
an untrained semantic task. The improvement was evident in the
training group only, although no differences between the groups
were detected prior to the training. Since semantic relatedness
judgments were not directly trained by the program, we conclude
that we did not simply train the specific training task, but rather
that we trained the underlying semantic processing mechanisms,
which consequently improved and affected performance under
different circumstances and context. These results serve as
preliminary evidence for far-transfer of the training within the
realm of semantic processing, i.e., post training performance
improvements in a task that was different in nature from the
trained task, tested in different physical, temporal and functional
contexts compared to the training (Barnett & Ceci, 2002).
[0346] Specifically, the training of coarse semantic skills led to
improvement in a condition probing for coarse semantic processing,
namely--the activation of less salient meanings, that are distantly
related to ambiguous prime words. The ability to activate and
retain multiple salient and less salient interpretations for a
given ambiguous stimuli or situation, also termed ambiguity
tolerance, is considered key to creativity (e.g., Tegano, 1990;
Zenasni, Besancon, & Lubart, 2008). Indeed, creative people are
better able to activate and maintain the activation of subordinate
meanings after being exposed to an ambiguous word (Atchley, Keeney,
& Burgess, 1999). If so, the training effect, which is
reflected as enhancing the activation of less salient concepts, may
affect the participants' creative abilities. The possible transfer
of the training to creative thinking, among other tasks that are
underlined by coarse semantic processing, should be examined in
future studies, that will further evaluate the effectiveness of
this training under additional contexts, and in additional
untrained tasks, including more ecological tests for using semantic
processing in daily life.
[0347] Together with the enhanced semantic performance, we observed
changes in prefrontal asymmetry along with the training by using a
behavioral laterality measure. The cognitive enhancement and the
shift in laterality indices correlated, implying that the semantic
performance changes evident in the linguistic task are indeed
grounded in right hemisphere processes, and were not an irrelevant
by-product of the training. Previously, Erickson and his colleagues
(Erickson et al., 2007) observed prefrontal asymmetry shifts that
were induced by cognitive training by using direct neuroimaging
measures (fMRI evidence). The authors found correlations between
performance improvement in trained attention abilities and the
asymmetry shifts, and interpreted it as evidence for a more
efficient utilization of proper strategies that was induced by the
training By the same token, it is plausible to interpret the
correlation that was found in our study, albeit the use of an
indirect behavioral marker for the asymmetry shifts, which is
evident in the effective recruitment of right hemisphere semantic
processes. Moreover, by demonstrating that training the skills of
coarse activation, integration and selection yielded changes in RH
bias which predicted the extent of the training-induced improvement
in processing distant meanings, our findings provide strong support
to the empirical and theoretical grounds for this study (e.g.,
Jung-Beeman, 2005).
[0348] As opposed to the training group, where RH bias predicted
the post-training semantic improvement, in the control group
laterality bias did not significantly predict the post-training
individual changes. Nonetheless, the post-training change in the
control group was predicted by the participants' reward
sensitivity, so that participants with higher reward responsiveness
showed greater improvement at the second assessment. This finding
is in line with predictions derived from the reinforcement
sensitivity theory (Pickering & Gray, 1999), that participants
with high BAS related tendencies will display superior learning
when their behavior is rewarded (Smillie, Dalgleish, & Jackson,
2007). Interestingly, in the training group, motivational
tendencies did not predict this change; hence training-induced
semantic improvement did not stem from mere motivation and reward
sensitivity.
[0349] Since the training achieved the desired semantic effect at
the group level, we aimed to further evaluate the individual
differences that may affect the extent to which participants can
benefit from RH semantic training. Many methodological discussions
in the field of cognitive training deliberate on the need to better
understand what individual characteristics affect the training gain
(e.g., Blume et al., 2010; Willis, 2010). As seen in FIG. 4b, our
results clearly show that participants with a better starting point
in terms of prior linguistic capabilities (as measured externally
by the verbal PET score) benefited more from the training.
Complemented by the finding that prior verbal abilities did not
significantly predict improvement in the second assessment among
the control group, it is clear that the training effect was
moderated by the participants' prior linguistic abilities.
[0350] Pre-training cognitive abilities has been long recognized as
one of the most important moderators of training gain and transfer:
"What the learner brings to the instructional situation in prior
knowledge and cognitive skills is of crucial importance" (Pintrich,
Cross, Kozma, & McKeachie, 1986, p. 613). Recently, in a
meta-analysis of 89 training empirical studies, Blume and his
colleagues found that cognitive abilities were the best predictor
of transfer, compared to other personality and motivation factors
(Blume et al., 2010). Accordingly, we suspect that the training
demands in our study were too high for participants with lower
linguistic abilities such as vocabulary and verbal reasoning.
Previous studies have shown that when training task is perceived as
too effortful and difficult (rather than challenging), the
performance in the training itself, and consequently the transfer,
are at stake (Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, & Shah, 2011). If
so, employing an adaptive training program, which is tailored to
each participant's prior abilities and training progress, may
extend training benefits to a broader spectrum of participants with
varied prior abilities (for example, see the adaptive working
memory training programs as reviewed by Shipstead, Redick, &
Engle, 2010).
[0351] Alternatively, the provided feedback may have not been
supportive enough for some of the participants. Recently, it has
been demonstrated that cognitive resources have an influence on a
participant's absorption of feedback (Kelley & Collins
McLaughlin, 2012). Participants with lower cognitive resources
(i.e., older adults as opposed to younger adults) were less able to
utilize low support feedback, including only KR, and learned only
by means of clear error feedback which explicated the rules to be
learned. As PET scores reflect verbal reasoning, among the rest, it
is possible that people with lower verbal reasoning skills were
less able to generalize the provided feedback and modify their
semantic strategies accordingly, as opposed to others who sufficed
with the provided feedback and were able to improve their skills
based on it. That is, the verbal reasoning abilities could mediate
the effect of feedback. Future studies could manipulate the
feedback level and see if it contributes to improvement in
training, and whether improved training performance will lead to
enhanced transfer (or rather to decreased transfer, as can be
predicted based on Schmidt and Bjork, 1992).
[0352] Alongside the strong evidence for the primary training
effect (i.e., the semantic enhancement), our results might also be
interpreted as preliminary evidence for a secondary effect on
memory, which demonstrates a positive side effect of the training.
The basic task in both programs, training and control, demanded
some use of working memory in order to integrate verbal information
from different clues, as the clues' content was not continuously
presented on screen. And indeed, both groups showed some
improvement following the training in the different memory
measurements--while no such improvement was expected, as these
measurements are considered to have high test-retest reliability
(Geffen, 1994). It is possible then, that both programs had a
positive artifact on verbal memory.
[0353] For the sake of comparison, when test-retest reliability was
tested using two English equivalent versions of this task,
significant correlations were found between best memory and total
memory scores in two sessions that were separated by 6-14 days
(Geffen, 1994). In our study, no such correlations were found in
the best memory score (with almost half of the participants showing
improvement--14/30, and 11/30 showing no change). Also, no
correlation was found in the training group when using the total
memory score (with 10/15 of each group showing slight improvement
following training) Moreover, the average improvement in our study
was 2.5 times larger than observed in the Geffen study for the best
memory score, and 4.6 times larger than the total memory score.
Hence, this comparison supports the interpretation that the
improvement in the memory scores observed in both groups does not
stem from an ordinary practice effect, but rather represents an
enhancement in verbal memory following both the training and
control programs. In order to be confirmed, this effect should be
further evaluated with an additional passive control group that
will perform the same assessments on the same schedule without any
intervention. Nonetheless, this early finding can be taken to imply
that the semantic training program had a possible secondary effect
on memory.
[0354] If so, in accordance with our primary and secondary goals,
we have been able to show that healthy adults can somewhat improve
their semantic performance, and perhaps memory performance too, by
using our training program. Our third objective in this study went
beyond its applied aspects, which intended to deepen our
understanding on semantic processing in the right hemisphere by
testing whether these skills could be trained selectively, in
isolation from more general linguistic and non-linguistic
processes. According to our predictions, the training-induced
effect was not transferred to non-semantic skills, as evident by
the lack of improvement in other verbal and non-verbal tasks.
Hence, the semantic improvement was not an artifact of a more
general improvement in verbal and non-verbal skills, whether in the
RH or in general. This comes to show that semantic processes among
healthy literate adults can be trained, per se.
[0355] As traces for additional training benefits were evident in
verbal memory, the question remains whether the semantic
enhancement was mediated by verbal memory enhancement. The training
emphasized the retention of multiple meanings for their later
integration. While BAIS model considers the maintenance of the
activation of remote meanings for longer periods of time to be part
of the diffuse qualities of coarse semantic activation
(Jung-Beeman, 2005), it is possible that our training utilized
other verbal memory skills in order to retain the activation of
these meanings. However, as both groups exhibited the memory
benefits, and only the training group exhibited the semantic
benefit, it is unlikely that enhancement in verbal memory underlies
observed enhancement in semantic processing. Moreover, correlations
between the individual post-training changes in the semantic and
memory scores were not significant for neither group nor beyond the
group. Nonetheless, the task that was used in this study to
evaluate semantic enhancement utilized an intermediate
interstimulus interval (ISI=500 ms), so that we tested meaning
retention as part of the semantic judgments for less than a second.
In that time frame, we can conclude that meaning retention does not
depend on verbal memory; however, more studies are necessary in
order to determine the underlying processes of meaning retention
for longer periods of time.
[0356] Lastly, while significant improvement was evident in
response to distant meanings, a marginally significant improvement
was also noticed in responses to salient meanings, a performance
change which is known to reflect LH dominated semantic processes
(Giora & Strinaris, 2009). Nonetheless, our findings can be
interpreted to show some dissociation between these effects: first,
the lack of correlation between the individual changes in these two
conditions among the training participants (as opposed to a high
correlation among the control participants), suggests that these
effects are somewhat independent; and indeed, the LH related effect
was not predicted by laterality shifts, as opposed to the RH
related one, nor was it predicted by prior verbal abilities.
[0357] These findings are in line with various accounts of
lateralization of semantic processing that emphasize the different
processes in each hemisphere in light of interhemispheric
collaboration, e.g., the PARLO framework (Federmeier, 2007) and
BAIS model (Jung-Beeman, 2005). Empirical evidence supports these
accounts by showing the cooperation of both hemispheres in
processing linguistic stimuli (e.g., Banich & Belger, 1990;
Weissman & Banich, 2000; Welcome & Chiarello, 2008). In
accordance with this evidence, it is not surprising that the
semantic training program stimulated LH semantic processing too;
but most importantly, the interpretation of the co-occurring
changes in the different conditions of the semantic task as
independent training-induced changes in RH and LH semantic
processing provides additional support for these models from a new
and applied perspective. In addition, on the practical level these
findings indicate that our training program may have had another
positive artifact on semantic processes in addition to the targeted
coarse semantic skills. To further explore this conclusion, future
studies could employ direct online brain imaging measurements and
monitor the lateralization patterns throughout the training and
during the assessment.
[0358] Thus, this controlled study demonstrated the effective
enhancement of semantic processes in the right hemisphere by means
of non-invasive semantic training. Additional benefits may appear
following the training in semantic processing in the left
hemisphere and in verbal memory. In a broader context, our findings
serve as a successful application of theories and empirical data in
the field of cognitive neuroscience which selectively improve
cognitive performance. Finally, while our primary research goal was
to apply the current knowledge on semantic processes in the right
hemisphere, our findings also enhance our understanding of these
processes. By showing that the semantic processing of distant
meanings could be selectively enhanced and that this performance
change is correlated with laterality shifts in RH bias, this study
provides additional support to the unique role that the right
hemisphere plays in semantic processing.
REFERENCES
[0359] Abdullaev, Y. G., & Posner, M. I. (1997). Time Course of
Activating Brain Areas in Generating Verbal Associations.
Psychological Science, 8(1), 56-59. SAGE Publications. [0360]
Atchley, R. A., Keeney, M., & Burgess, C. (1999). Cerebral
hemispheric mechanisms linking ambiguous word meaning retrieval and
creativity. Brain and cognition, 40(3), 479-499. [0361] Balota, D.
A., & Chumbley, J. I. (1984). Are lexical decisions a good
measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the
neglected decision stage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 10(3), 340-357. [0362] Banich, M. T.,
& Belger, A. (1990). Interhemispheric interaction: How do the
hemispheres divide and conquer a task? Cortex, 26(1), 77-94. [0363]
Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we
apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological
Bulletin, 128(4), 612-637. [0364] Beeman, M. (1998). Coarse
semantic coding and discourse comprehension. In M. Beeman & C.
Chiarello (Eds.), Right hemisphere language comprehension:
Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 255-284). Mahwah,
N.J.: Erlbaum. [0365] Beeman, M., & Chiarello, C. (1998). Right
hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive
neuroscience. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
[0366] Beeman, M., Friedman, R. B., Grafman, J., Perez, E.,
Diamond, S., & Lindsay, M. B. (1994). Summation Priming and
Coarse Semantic Coding in the Right Hemisphere. Journal of
Cognitive Neuroscience, 6(1), 26-45. [0367] Beller, M. (1994).
Psychometric and Social Issues in Admissions to Israeli
Universities. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13(2),
12-20. [0368] Beller, M. (1995). Translated versions of Israel's
inter-university Psychometric Entrance Test (PET). In T. Oakland
& R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), international perspectives on
academic assessment (pp. 207-218). Boston: Kluwer. [0369] Berkeley,
S., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2009). Reading
Comprehension Instruction for Students With Learning Disabilities,
1995-2006: A Meta-Analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31(6),
423-436. [0370] Blake, M. L. (2010). Communication Deficits
Associated with Right Hemisphere Brain Damage. In J. S. Damico, N.
Muller, & M. J. Ball (Eds.), The Handbook of Language and
Speech Disorders (pp. 556-576). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. [0371]
Blok, H., Oostdam, R., Otter, M. E., & Overmaat, M. (2002).
Computer-Assisted Instruction in Support of Beginning Reading
Instruction: A Review. Review of Educational Research, 72(1),
101-130. [0372] Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., &
Huang, J. L. (2010). Transfer of Training: A Meta-Analytic Review.
Journal of Management, 36(4), 1065-1105. [0373] Bourne, V. J.
(2006). The divided visual field paradigm: methodological
considerations. Laterality, 11(4), 373-393. [0374] Brown, A. S.,
& Mitchell, D. B. (1994). A reevaluation of semantic versus
nonsemantic processing in implicit memory. Memory & Cognition,
22(5), 533-541. [0375] Burgess, C., & Simpson, G. B. (1988).
Cerebral hemispheric mechanisms in the retrieval of ambiguous word
meanings Brain and Language, 33(1), 86-103. [0376] Buschkuehl, M.,
& Jaeggi, S. M. (2010). Improving intelligence: a literature
review. Swiss medical weekly, 140(19-20), 266-272. [0377] Campbell,
D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and
quasi-experimental designs for research. (N. L. Gage, Ed.).
Chicago, Ill.: Rand-McNally. [0378] Carver, C. S., & White, T.
L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and
affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS
Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2),
319-333. [0379] Coltheart, M. (2006). Dual route and connectionist
models of reading: an overview. London Review of Education, 4(1),
5-17. Routledge. [0380] Cornelissen, K., Laine, M., Tarkiainen, A.,
Jarvensivu, T., Martin, N., & Salmelin, R. (2003). Adult brain
plasticity elicited by anomia treatment. Journal of cognitive
neuroscience, 15(3), 444-461. [0381] Coulson, S., & Wu, Y. C.
(2005). Right hemisphere activation of joke-related information: an
event-related brain potential study. Journal of cognitive
neuroscience, 17(3), 494-506. [0382] Cousineau, D. (2005).
Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution
to Loftus and Masson's method. Tutorial in Quantitative Methods for
Psychology, 1(1), 42-45. [0383] Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R.
S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671-684.
[0384] Dahlin, E., Neely, A. S., Larsson, A., Backman, L., &
Nyberg, L. (2008). Transfer of learning after updating training
mediated by the striatum. Science, 320, 1510-1512. [0385] Dien, J.
(2008). Looking both ways through time: the Janus model of
lateralized cognition. Brain and cognition, 67(3), 292-323. [0386]
Edmonds, M. S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable, A.,
Tackett, K. K., & Schnakenberg, J. W. (2009). A Synthesis of
Reading Interventions and Effects on Reading Comprehension Outcomes
for Older Struggling Readers. Review of educational research,
79(1), 262-300. [0387] Erickson, K. I., Colcombe, S. J., Wadhwa,
R., Bherer, L., Peterson, M. S., Scalf, P. E., Kim, J. S., et al.
(2007). Training-induced plasticity in older adults: effects of
training on hemispheric asymmetry. Neurobiology of aging, 28(2),
272-283. [0388] Faust, M., & Kahana, A. (2002). Priming
summation in the cerebral hemispheres: evidence from semantically
convergent and semantically divergent primes. Neuropsychologia,
40(7), 892-901. [0389] Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Thinking ahead:
the role and roots of prediction in language comprehension.
Psychophysiology, 44(4), 491-505. [0390] Geffen, G. (1994).
Test-retest reliability of a new form of the auditory verbal
learning test (AVLT). Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 9(4),
303-316. [0391] Giora, R., & Stringaris, K. A. (2009). Neural
substrates of metaphor. In P. Hogan (Ed.), The Cambridge
Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences (pp. 489-492). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. [0392] Gopher, D. (2007). Emphasis
Changes as a Training Protocol for High-Demand Tasks. In A. F.
Kramer, D. Woegmann, & A. Kirlik (Eds.), Attention: from theory
to practice (Vol. 101, pp. 209-224). Oxford University Press.
[0393] Gopher, D., Weil, M., & Bareket, T. (1994). Transfer of
a skill from a computer game trainer to flight. human factors,
36(3), 387-405. [0394] Gopher, D., Weil, M., & Siegel, D.
(1989). Practice under changing priorities: An approach to training
of complex skills. Acta Psychologica, 71, 147-177. [0395] Green, C.
S., & Bavelier, D. (2008). Exercising your brain: a review of
human brain plasticity and training-induced learning. Psychology
and aging, 23(4), 692-701. [0396] Harpaz, Y., Levkovitz, Y., &
Lavidor, M. (2009). Lexical ambiguity resolution in Wernicke's area
and its right homologue. Cortex, 45(9), 1097-1103. [0397] Hart, S.
G., & Battiste, V. (1992). Field test of video game trainer.
Proceedings of the human factors society 36th annual meeting (pp.
1291-1295). [0398] Hudson, P. T., & Bergman, M. W. (1985).
Lexical knowledge in word recognition: Word length and word
frequency in naming and lexical decision tasks. Journal of Memory
and Language, 24(1), 46-58. [0399] Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M.,
Jonides, J., & Shah, P. (2011). Short- and long-term benefits
of cognitive training. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 108(25), 10081-10086.
[0400] Jean, L., Bergeron, M.-E., Thivierge, S., & Simard, M.
(2010). Cognitive Intervention Programs for Individuals With Mild
Cognitive Impairment: Systematic Review of the Literature. The
American journal of geriatric psychiatry, 18(4), 281-296. [0401]
Jewell, G., & McCourt, M. E. (2000). Pseudoneglect: a review
and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks.
Neuropsychologia, 38(1), 93-110. [0402] Jung-Beeman, M. (2005).
Bilateral brain processes for comprehending natural language.
Trends in cognitive sciences, 9(11), 512-518. [0403] Jung-Beeman,
M., Bowden, E. M., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2000). Right and left
hemisphere cooperation for drawing predictive and coherence
inferences during normal story comprehension. Brain and language,
71(2), 310-336. [0404] Jung-Beeman, M., Bowden, E. M., Haberman,
J., Frymiare, J. L., Arambel-Liu, S., Greenblatt, R., Reber, P. J.,
et al. (2004). Neural activity when people solve verbal problems
with insight. PLoS Biology, 2(4), 500-510. Public Library of
Science. [0405] Kahlaoui, K., Scherer, L. C., & Joanette, Y.
(2008). The Right Hemisphere's Contribution to the Processing of
Semantic Relationships between Words. Language and Linguistics
Compass, 2(4), 550-568. [0406] Kelley, C. M., & Collins
McLaughlin, A. (2012). Individual Differences in the Benefits of
Feedback for Learning. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54(1), 26-35. [0407] Kiefer, M.,
Weisbrod, M., Kern, I., Maier, S., & Spitzer, M. (1998). Right
hemisphere activation during indirect semantic priming: evidence
from event-related potentials. Brain and language, 64(3), 377-408.
[0408] Kircher, T. T., Brammer, M., Tous Andreu, N., Williams, S.
C., & McGuire, P. K. (2001). Engagement of right temporal
cortex during processing of linguistic context. Neuropsychologia,
39(8), 798-809. [0409] Levy, T., Walsh, V., & Lavidor, M.
(2010). Dorsal stream modulation of visual word recognition in
skilled readers. Vision research, 50(9), 883-888. [0410] Lezak, M.
D. (1983). Neuropsychological assessment (2nd ed.). New York:
Oxford University Press. [0411] Lindell, A. K. (2006). In your
right mind: right hemisphere contributions to language processing
and production. Neuropsychology review, 16(3), 131-148. [0412]
Lundgren, K., Brownell, H., Cayer-meade, C., Milione, J., &
Kearns, K. (2011). Treating metaphor interpretation deficits
subsequent to right hemisphere brain damage: Preliminary results.
Aphasiology, 25(4), 456-474. [0413] Marinkovic, K., Baldwin, S.,
Courtney, M. G., Witzel, T., Dale, A. M., & Halgren, E. (2011).
Right hemisphere has the last laugh: neural dynamics of joke
appreciation. Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience,
11(1), 113-130. Springer New York. [0414] Mashal, N., Faust, M.,
Hendler, T., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2007). An fMRI investigation of
the neural correlates underlying the processing of novel metaphoric
expressions. Brain and language, 100(2), 115-126. [0415] Mashal,
N., Faust, M., Hendler, T., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2008).
Hemispheric differences in processing the literal interpretation of
idioms: converging evidence from behavioral and fMRI studies.
Cortex, 44(7), 848-860. [0416] Mashal, N., Faust, M., Hendler, T.,
& Jung-Beeman, M. (2009). An fMRI study of processing novel
metaphoric sentences. Laterality, 14(1), 30-54. [0417] McGurk, S.
R., Twamley, E. W., Sitzer, D. I., McHugo, G. J., & Mueser, K.
T. (2007). A meta-analysis of cognitive remediation in
schizophrenia. The American journal of psychiatry, 164(12),
1791-1802. [0418] McNab, F., Varrone, A., Farde, L., Jucaite, A.,
Bystritsky, P., Forssberg, H., & Klingberg, T. (2009). Changes
in cortical dopamine D1 receptor binding associated with cognitive
training. Science, 323, 800-802. [0419] Melby-Lervag, M., &
Hulme, C. (2012). Is Working Memory Training Effective? A
Meta-Analytic Review. Developmental Psychology, Advance online
publication. [0420] Mitchell, R. L. C., & Crow, T. J. (2005).
Right hemisphere language functions and schizophrenia: the
forgotten hemisphere? Brain: a journal of neurology, 128(5),
963-978. [0421] Nash, K., McGregor, I., & Inzlicht, M. (2010).
Line bisection as a neural marker of approach motivation.
Psychophysiology, 47(5), 979-983. [0422] Oldfield, R. C. C. (1971).
The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory.
Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97-113. [0423] Olesen, P. J., Westerberg,
H., & Klingberg, T. (2004). Increased prefrontal and parietal
activity after training of working memory. Nature neuroscience,
7(1), 75-79. [0424] Peleg, O., & Eviatar, Z. (2008).
Hemispheric sensitivities to lexical and contextual information:
evidence from lexical ambiguity resolution. Brain and language,
105(2), 71-82. [0425] Peleg, O., & Eviatar, Z. (2009). Semantic
asymmetries are modulated by phonological asymmetries: evidence
from the disambiguation of homophonic versus heterophonic
homographs. Brain and cognition, 70(1), 154-62. [0426] Peleg, O.,
& Eviatar, Z. (2012). Understanding written words:
Phonological, lexical and contextual effects in the two cerebral
hemispheres. In M. Faust (Ed.), The handbook of the neuropsychology
of language (pp. 59-76). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
[0427] Peretz, Y., & Lavidor, M. (in press). Enhancing lexical
ambiguity resolution by brain polarization of the right posterior
superior temporal sulcus. Cortex. [0428] Pickering, A. D., &
Gray, J. A. (1999). The neuroscience of personality. In L. A.
Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and
research (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 277-299). New York, N.Y.: Guilford
Press. [0429] Pintrich, P. R., Cross, D. R., Kozma, R. B., &
McKeachie, W. J. (1986). Instructional psychology. Annual Review of
Psychology, 37, 611-651. [0430] Rey, A. (1941). L'examen
psychologie dans les cas d'encephalopathie traumatique. Archives de
Psychologie, 28, 286-340. [0431] Rey, A. (1964). L'examen clinique
en psychologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. [0432] Ron
Nelson, J., Benner, G. J., & Gonzalez, J. (2003). Learner
Characteristics that Influence the Treatment Effectiveness of Early
Literacy Interventions: A Meta-Analytic Review. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(4), 255-267. [0433] Sass,
K., Krach, S., Sachs, O., & Kircher, T. (2009).
Lion-tiger-stripes: Neural correlates of indirect semantic priming
across processing modalities. NeuroImage, 45(1), 224-236. [0434]
Schmidt, B. R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New
Conceptualizations of Practice: Common Principles in Three
Paradigms Suggest New Concepts for Training. Psychological Science,
3(4), 207-218. [0435] Seger, C. A., Desmond, J. E., Glover, G. H.,
& Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2000). Functional magnetic resonance
imaging evidence for right-hemisphere involvement in processing
unusual semantic relationships. Neuropsychology, 14(3), 361-369.
[0436] Shalev, L., Tsal, Y., & Mevorach, C. (2007).
Computerized progressive attentional training (CPAT) program:
effective direct intervention for children with ADHD. Child
neuropsychology, 13(4), 382-388. [0437] Shipstead, Z., Redick, T.
S., & Engle, R. W. (2010). Does working memory training
generalize? Psychologica Belgica, 50, 3(4), 245-276. Academia
Press. [0438] Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on Formative Feedback.
Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189. [0439] Smillie, L.
D., Dalgleish, L. I., & Jackson, C. J. (2007). Distinguishing
between learning and motivation in behavioral tests of the
reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality.
Personality & social psychology bulletin, 33(4), 476-489.
[0440] Smith, G. E., Housen, P., Yaffe, K., Ruff, R., Kennison, R.
F., Mahncke, H. W., & Zelinski, E. M. (2009). A cognitive
training program based on principles of brain plasticity: results
from the Improvement in Memory with Plasticity-based Adaptive
Cognitive Training (IMPACT) study. Journal of the American
Geriatrics Society, 57(4), 594-603. [0441] St George, M., Kutas,
M., Martinez, A., & Sereno, M. I. (1999). Semantic integration
in reading: engagement of the right hemisphere during discourse
processing. Brain, 122, 1317-1325. [0442] Tegano, D. W. (1990).
Relationship of tolerance of ambiguity and playfulness to
creativity. Psychological Reports, 66, 1047-1056. [0443] Tompkins,
C. A., Baumgaertner, A., Blake, M. L., & Fassbinder, W. (2000).
Mechanisms of discourse comprehension impairment after right
hemisphere brain damage: suppression in lexical ambiguity
resolution. Journal of speech, language, and hearing research:
JSLHR, 43(1), 62-78. [0444] Tompkins, C. A., Blake, M. T.,
Wambaugh, J., & Meigh, K. (2011). A novel, implicit treatment
for language comprehension processes in right hemisphere brain
damage: Phase I data. Aphasiology, 25(6-7), 789-799. [0445]
Tompkins, C. A., Fassbinder, W., Scharp, V. L., & Meigh, K. M.
(2008). Activation and maintenance of peripheral semantic features
of unambiguous words after right hemisphere brain damage in adults.
Aphasiology, 22(2), 119-138. [0446] Tompkins, C. A., Scharp, V. L.,
Meigh, K. M., & Fassbinder, W. (2008). Coarse coding and
discourse comprehension in adults with right hemisphere brain
damage. Aphasiology, 22(2), 204-223. [0447] Toplak, M. E., Connors,
L., Shuster, J., Knezevic, B., & Parks, S. (2008). Review of
cognitive, cognitive-behavioral, and neural-based interventions for
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Clinical
psychology review, 28(5), 801-823. [0448] Twamley, E. W., Jeste, D.
V., & Bellack, A. S. (2003). A review of cognitive training in
schizophrenia. Schizophrenia bulletin, 29(2), 359-382. [0449]
Vakil, E., & Blachstein, H. (1993). Rey Auditory-Verbal
Learning Test: Structure analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
49(6), 883-890. [0450] Vakil, E., & Blachstein, H. (1997). Rey
AVLT: Developmental norms for adults and the sensitivity of
different memory measures to age. The Clinical Neuropsychologist,
11(4), 356-369. [0451] Valenzuela, M., & Sachdev, P. (2009).
Can cognitive training prevent the onset of dementia? A systematic
review of randomized clinical trials with longitudinal follow up.
Alzheimer's & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer's, 5(4),
157-158. [0452] Virtue, S., Parrish, T., & Jung-Beeman, M.
(2008). Inferences during story comprehension: cortical recruitment
affected by predictability of events and working memory capacity.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(12), 2274-2284. [0453]
Weissman, D. H., & Banich, M. T. (2000). The cerebral
hemispheres cooperate to perform complex but not simple tasks.
Neuropsychology, 14(1), 41-59. [0454] Welcome, S. E., &
Chiarello, C. (2008). How dynamic is interhemispheric interaction?
Effects of task switching on the across-hemisphere advantage. Brain
and cognition, 67(1), 69-75. [0455] Willis, S. L. (2010). Cognitive
Plasticity: Findings from Cognitive Training Studies. Annual Report
of Meiso University, 28, 37-49. [0456] Willis, S. L., Tennstedt, S.
L., Marsiske, M., Ball, K., Elias, J., Koepke, K. M., Morris, J.
N., et al. (2006). Long-term effects of cognitive training on
everyday functional outcomes in older adults. JAMA: the journal of
the American Medical Association, 296(23), 2805-2814. [0457]
Yechiam, E., Erev, I., & Gopher, D. (2001). On the potential
value and limitations of emphasis change and other
exploration-enhancing training methods. Journal of experimental
psychology--Applied, 7(4), 277-285. [0458] Zenasni, F., Besancon,
M., & Lubart, T. (2008). Creativity and Tolerance of Ambiguity:
An Empirical Study. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(1), 61-73.
[0459] icek, M., Nalcaci, E., & Kalaycioglu, C. (2003). Line
bisection task performance and resting EEG alpha power.
International Journal of Neuroscience, 113(6), 849-866.
[0460] The present invention has been described and embodiments
provided relating to the above described methods and systems. The
present invention is now further described by the claims which
follow. Optionally, any of the above embodiments or sub-embodiments
described herein may be combined to form a combination or
sub-combination.
* * * * *